BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Humber Bridge Bill

Bill, as amended, considered.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

David Livingstone: Anniversary

Eleanor Laing: What steps his Department has taken to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of David Livingstone.

David Mundell: The Scotland Office is working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the David Livingstone 200 partnership on the programme of celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Dr David Livingstone. On 19 March, the Scotland Office hosted a reception at Dover House following the commemorative service at Westminster Abbey in the presence of President Joyce Banda of Malawi.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure the whole House will be pleased to hear what the Scotland Office is doing. It is fitting, especially to those of us who well remember childhood trips to Blantyre, the birthplace of David Livingstone, that tribute should be paid to him here in Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although a minority of Scots want to put artificial barriers around Scotland, the vast majority of Scots believe in the pioneering, enterprising spirit of David Livingstone, and want Scotland to play its full part in the United Kingdom, and indeed in the world in general?

David Mundell: I could not agree more. David Livingstone was both a great Scot and a great Briton, who had an outward, progressive-looking attitude to the world, which exemplifies why Scotland and Britain are better together.

Tom Greatrex: I place on record my thanks to the Scotland Office and the Foreign Office for ensuring that President Joyce Banda was able to visit Scotland, particularly Blantyre in my constituency, to mark the start of the celebrations. May I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the wide range of events happening through the year, and encourage as many
	people as possible to come to Blantyre in my constituency and visit the centre there and take part in the celebrations?

David Mundell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for noting the work the UK Government, and indeed the Scottish Government, have done on the matter. He, too, is to be commended for the part he has played in promoting the David Livingstone bicentenary. He is correct: there are a number of continuing events, and all those who wish to do so should take the opportunity to take part in them.

James Gray: I very much welcome the various celebrations that the Minister has announced today. Does he agree that there could be no finer commemoration of that magnificent missionary, scientist, statesman and explorer than his gravestone in Westminster Abbey? It does not list any honours, or even his dates of birth and death or his parenthood; on a piece of Scottish granite, it simply says the magnificent words “David Livingstone.”

David Mundell: Indeed, that is a poignant memorial to Dr Livingstone. It was particularly memorable to see members of his family laying a wreath on the gravestone, along with President Banda, at the commemorative service.

Brian H Donohoe: I presume that Dr Livingstone was a great educationalist, who believed in education. What has the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State done to set up the school-industry liaison committees that he promised me some months ago?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is very tangentially related to the 200th anniversary of the birth of David Livingstone. The hon. Gentleman should not speculate about what Dr Livingstone would have said, because the fact is that he did not—he was not in a position to do so and he cannot do so now. I think we had better move on. I call Iain Stewart.

Caledonian Sleeper Train

Iain Stewart: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the future of the Caledonian sleeper train.

David Mundell: The UK Government provided £50 million to safeguard and improve the Caledonian sleeper service in 2011. Responsibility for taking the project forward is now with the Scottish Government. We look forward finally to seeing some progress.

Iain Stewart: I am pleased that the Government have invested in the future of the Caledonian sleeper, which is a vital transport link for business and tourism alike, but does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Scottish Government have not shown the same urgency on upgrading that vital link?

David Mundell: I agree with my hon. Friend. He might be aware that, since the spending review, the Scottish Government have received over £1 billion in additional funding for what they said were shovel-ready projects, but the only shovelling of which they seem capable is digging the sort of hole that we saw yesterday regarding the currency.

Angus MacNeil: The Scottish National party Government have in fact invested £130 million in the sleeper service—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) wants to be quiet, he can be. The SNP Government understand the importance of linking mega-regions, which has been identified by Professor Richard Florida as a win-win for all concerned. In Spain, the linking of Seville to Madrid has benefited not only Seville as intended, but Madrid far more. With the sleeper service maintained to Inverness and Fort William, when will the UK Government ensure that there are high-speed links and landing slots at Heathrow to maintain full connectivity between mega-regions, because we want England, in particular, to keep pace with Scottish prosperity post independence?

David Mundell: The Government are committed to ensuring that there is connectivity within the United Kingdom, just as they are committed to ensuring that we stay a United Kingdom.

Menzies Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend considered that the sleeper service might be better served if there were electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen? Coincidentally, that passes through my constituency, and the project would provide a better service for the stations of Ladybank, Cupar and Leuchars.

David Mundell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly always keen to promote his constituency interests, but he will be aware that that was one of the many projects that the Scottish National party said in opposition it would deliver—yet it does not seem to be on the agenda any more.

Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the Caledonian sleeper is a vital link between the Ministry of Defence in London and the shipyards on the Clyde? Does he accept that trade on the Caledonian sleeper will drastically reduce in the event that we have separation and the Clyde shipyards close?

David Mundell: What I accept is that if we were to have separation, there would be a great deal of uncertainty, and not just for the operators of the Caledonian sleeper service. As we saw yesterday, for example, those promoting independence have no idea what currency would be used in an independent Scotland, which will be a significant factor in creating additional uncertainty.

Ryder Cup

Jim Sheridan: What recent discussions he has had with the organisers of the Ryder cup in Scotland regarding their voluntary charging policy.

David Mundell: I am very pleased that the Ryder cup is coming to Scotland in 2014. We will work with the Scottish Government and the organisers to make it a success.

Jim Sheridan: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that having to pay to volunteer is a contradiction in terms, and that that debars many people from participating in a sport such as golf? Will he make further representations to the Ryder cup’s organisers that they should follow the lead of Glasgow city council by creating genuine volunteers?

David Mundell: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which I will take forward with EventScotland and Shona Robison, the Scottish Government Minister with responsibility for the Ryder cup.

Michael McCann: The Ryder cup is a unique golf tournament, because the competitors compete not for cash prizes but for the pride of representing their country or continent, so it is perverse that volunteers will be asked to pay to deliver their services. Will the Minister add that point to his representations when he meets the event’s organisers?

David Mundell: I will certainly be happy to add the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to those expressed by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan).

Welfare Reform

Pete Wishart: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government's welfare benefit reforms in Scotland.

Fiona O'Donnell: When he last met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss the effects of welfare reform in Scotland.

Michael Moore: My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on matters relating to welfare reform in Scotland.

Pete Wishart: We now know that more than 100,000 Scots will be affected by the Government’s bedroom tax, which is opposed by over 90% of Scottish MPs and has appalled civic Scotland. It is opposed in every locality in Scotland and there have been protests in Glasgow. Does the Secretary of State agree that the bedroom tax is quickly becoming his Government’s poll tax?

Michael Moore: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, as he will not be surprised to hear. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been going around Scotland talking to councils and groups that have an interest in the matter and are concerned about different aspects of implementation, and we will continue to do that. However, people are clear that we want to keep together within the United Kingdom the universal and shared values that created the welfare state and the NHS, rather than for Scotland to become an independent country.

Fiona O'Donnell: A family in my constituency with children aged two, three, four and five who have been hit by the bedroom tax were yesterday advised by those on the Government Benches in the Finance Bill Committee to take in a lodger. Does the Secretary of State think that was good advice?

Michael Moore: I obviously cannot comment on the constituency details that the hon. Lady has brought to the Floor of the House today or on the full extent of the exchange yesterday. As I said to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) a few moments ago, we need to look carefully at how the measure is implemented. I would be happy to hear further details from the hon. Lady on that case.

Gregg McClymont: The Secretary of State will be aware that by far the largest single part of the welfare budget goes on pensions, including the state pension, pension credit and related pensioner benefits. What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government about how pensions would work in a separate Scotland?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman raises a hugely important issue which will be one of the big questions that we ask in Scotland as we build up to the referendum next year. The security and the scale of the United Kingdom allows us the solidarity of common provision across the United Kingdom, and we have the means to pay for that, even in difficult economic times, as we have had recently. We have not seen or heard anything from the Scottish National party or their supporters about how they would do that in an independent Scotland.

Gordon Banks: There is a link between welfare and the use of food banks, and I have raised the topic of food banks a number of times in this place through questions and petitions and directly with the Prime Minister, which have all seemed to go unanswered. The Secretary of State will have seen today’s report from the Trussell Trust revealing that the number of people using food banks in Scotland has increased from fewer than 5,000 last year to more than 14,000 this year. Can he tell the House why he is letting this happen?

Michael Moore: My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have met people at food banks, and recently I met the executive chairman of the Trussell Trust. As the chief executive would point out, as I am sure he has to the hon. Gentleman, there is a range of complex reasons going back many years for why people need access to food banks. We continue to look at this very carefully. I do not want people to have to go to food banks to get support. I am happy to continue that dialogue with the hon. Gentleman.

Budget 2013

Ann McKechin: What assessment he has made of the effect of Budget 2013 on Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson: What assessment he has made of the effect of Budget 2013 on Scotland.

Michael Moore: The Budget will support businesses, create jobs and help households in Scotland. Against a challenging international economic backdrop, the Budget has set out a range of measures to build a stronger economy and a fairer society.

Ann McKechin: Ministers will be aware of a report today by the Fawcett Society showing that three times as many women as men have suffered long-term unemployment in the past two and a half years. That is hardly surprising given the Budget decisions from which women have suffered the most. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is tolerable for women to continue to bear the brunt of his Government’s failed economic policies?

Michael Moore: I obviously do not accept the hon. Lady’s analysis, but I commend her for campaigning long and hard on that issue, at which we need to continue to look very hard. In the Budget we have introduced proposals on child care which take us much further than we have gone before. We are focusing on helping low-income families in Scotland by taking more than 200,000 Scots out of tax altogether and reducing the income tax bill for 2 million people in Scotland. We will continue to take a range of measures to make sure that we recover from the awful inheritance of her Government.

Cathy Jamieson: The unemployment figures in Scotland have not been helped by the devastating news of the closure of a number of open-cast coal sites in the area covered by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). As 348 people have lost their jobs in our area, I am sure the Minister will want to do everything possible to ensure that a potential buyer is able to come in. In that context and in the context of discussions following the Budget, will he make representations about the track access charges and the increase due to come into effect in 2016, which might put Scottish companies in the coal sector at a disadvantage?

Michael Moore: First, I join the hon. Lady in her concern about the future for the families affected by that hugely significant administration of Scottish Resources Group. She and others has been working tirelessly on the issue, and we will work with her and the Scottish Government to see what we can do to support the families and communities affected. She raises the issue of track access, which I will be happy to discuss with her further.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the Government on cancelling Labour’s planned fuel duty increase and introducing an island fuel duty discount in the Budget, which means that fuel duty on the mainland will be 13p a litre cheaper than it would be under Labour and 18p a litre cheaper on the islands. A Labour Government would have destroyed the Argyll and Bute economy. I congratulate the Government on supporting the rural economy, unlike the Labour party, which did not care and wanted to increase fuel duty by 18p a litre. [Interruption.]

Michael Moore: Just in case Labour Members did not hear that, I repeat that the measures taken by our Government have saved remote island communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, 18p a litre, and they have saved those on the mainland 13p a litre. That is a huge help to hard-pressed families the length and breadth of the country.

Robert Smith: Many jobs in Scotland, especially in north-east Scotland, depend on investment in the oil and gas industry. Does the Secretary of State recognise the important role that the Budget has played in delivering tax certainty on decommissioning to unlock that vital investment?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend always makes a powerful case for the oil and gas industry, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce). It is important to recognise their input in the decisions about decommissioning, which give certainty and good news for investment, not only now but for decades to come.

Angus Robertson: The International Monetary Fund has cut the UK growth forecast and questioned the Government’s austerity programme, and the UK’s credit rating has been downgraded yet again. Why should anyone believe a word that the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say on the Budget, the currency, or for that matter anything else?

Michael Moore: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nobody will be listening to him or his party when it comes to currency. I think that everybody recognises that the best deal for Scotland is to stay part of the United Kingdom and to continue to share the currency, unlike his party, which keeps changing its mind about what might be the best option for Scotland. We know already what is best for Scotland: staying part of the UK.

Angus Robertson: Everybody watching will have noted that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. The UK is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world, and today we learnt that the number of people using food banks has doubled. Citizens Advice Scotland has said that that increase illustrates “the devastating impact” of his Government’s policy. Why should people in Scotland put up with a Government they did not elect making those damaging decisions?

Michael Moore: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, which of course assumes that everything would be rosy in an independent Scotland, despite the hard realities we keep confronting him with. We are absolutely determined to get the economy on a strong footing, invest in our future and support hard-pressed families. That is what the Budget was all about.

Margaret Curran: This Government promised that they would get people back to work. By how much has long-term unemployment in Scotland been reduced on the Secretary of State’s watch?

Michael Moore: I am interested to hear that the hon. Lady did not welcome the reduction in unemployment announced last week. The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Scotland is below 200,000 and
	the unemployment rate is 7.3%, which is below the rate for the UK as a whole. We have some very long-term, deep-seated problems that we inherited from her Government that we continue to tackle. We have credible plans; where are hers?

Margaret Curran: Shockingly, the number of people in Scotland who have been out of work for two years has increased by 517% during the Secretary of State’s time in office, which is far worse than across the UK as a whole. Is there anything specific he can offer those people out of work long term in Scotland, or is he just content to be a Tory puppet repeating their lines on the Budget?

Michael Moore: The hon. Lady knows, because she and I visited the Shettleston jobcentre in her constituency, that we are working hard to ensure that we provide support for people in very difficult circumstances in Scotland. She picks just one statistic, which is important, and ignores all the rest. Some 70,000 more people are in employment in Scotland over the past three years. We are determined to ensure that we get the economy back from the brink, where her party left it three years ago. We continue to work hard to do that.

Scotland Referendum

Philip Hollobone: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on how many non-UK EU nationals will be eligible to participate in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

David Mundell: On 15 October 2012, the UK and Scottish Governments signed an agreement to ensure that a legal, fair and decisive referendum on Scotland’s future can take place. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine the franchise for the referendum.

Philip Hollobone: Would it not be completely outrageous were the Scottish Parliament to decide to use the local election franchise and therefore allow the possibility of the future constitutional make-up of the United Kingdom to be decided by some several hundred thousand non-UK EU nationals?

David Mundell: It will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine the franchise, but my hon. Friend is incorrect: the number of EU nationals able to vote on the Scottish Parliament franchise is less than 2% of the total.

Anas Sarwar: Those who defend our country should be allowed to take part in deciding its future. What steps will the Minister take to make sure that armed forces personnel serving abroad will be able to cast their votes in the referendum?

David Mundell: This is an important matter. A service declaration is already in place which allows armed forces personnel with a link to Scotland to register at an address in Scotland. It will be for the Scottish Parliament, if it so chooses, to put additional measures in place.

Michael Crockart: Does the Minister agree that another difficulty with regard to the people who will be able to vote in this election is the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds? Has he had any discussions with the Scottish Government to see whether they have found a solution to the severe problems that that will cause, including putting 14 and 15-year-olds on the register?

David Mundell: The Scottish Parliament will have the ability to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. A draft Bill has been introduced for debate in the Scottish Parliament, which is the appropriate place for those issues to be considered.

Corby

Andy Sawford: What plans he has to visit Corby.

David Mundell: I would be very happy to visit Corby, where, as a Scot, I understand I would feel very much at home, with plentiful supplies of the Daily Record, Irn-Bru and my favourite Scotch pies.

Andy Sawford: I thank the Minister for his reply and will take him up on his offer. Corby people are very proud of their Scottish connections, but they are worried that, if the break up of the Union goes through, they will no longer be able to move or trade freely or even to use the same currency. Will the Minister ensure that my constituents’ voices are heard?

David Mundell: Corby is a great example of the British family of nations and we should celebrate it. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to tell their friends and families in Scotland to vote no in the referendum.

Ian Murray: rose—

Mr Speaker: I trust the hon. Gentleman is inquiring about visits to Corby.

Ian Murray: When the Minister visits Corby, will he get the train to Peterborough on the east coast main line? What discussions is the Secretary of State having with his Cabinet colleagues to keep that line in public ownership?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the east coast main line is going to return to the franchise arrangements.

Common Agricultural Policy

Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had on the effects of common agricultural policy reform in Scotland.

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions on CAP reform with a range of industry stakeholders in Scotland. On 27 March, we facilitated a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment,
	Food and Rural Affairs and the National Farmers Union Scotland on CAP reform-related issues. The UK Government are pressing hard for a new CAP that takes account of the range of interests across the UK, including in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Has he considered the impact of greening the CAP and, in particular, is he confident that there will be match funding from the Treasury?

David Mundell: This is one of the many issues that have been discussed. I and the Secretary of State for Scotland continue to argue for Scotland’s interests in these matters.

Michael Weir: Does the Minister support the efforts of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to end direct payments out of pillar 1 of CAP? What effect does he think that would have on Scottish farming?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the situation. Scotland will have flexibility to determine its own arrangements in relation to CAP reform.

Russell Brown: With rising food prices and food poverty, has the Minister made any representations to colleagues about the need to grow more food in Scotland?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman will know that in his constituency, as in my own constituency, there is a strong view that we should grow more of our own food. I encourage local farmers to do so.

Mr Speaker: What a timely reply from the Minister that was.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael McCann: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 April.

David Cameron: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie Jonathan Webb of 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who died in Afghanistan on Tuesday 26 March. He was described as
	“an outstanding professional; bright, engaging and hugely talented.”
	We must pay tribute to his heroic service to our country.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Michael McCann: The whole House will wish to associate itself with the Prime Minister’s tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie Webb. We pass on our deepest condolences to his family and friends.
	Labour market statistics show that, even after the tax changes, real earnings have dropped by £1,700 since the last general election. Knowing that hard-working families across our country are being hit hard in their pockets, does the Prime Minister want to show any remorse, or indeed apologise, for giving millionaires, including himself, a tax cut?

David Cameron: The people who should be apologising are those in the party that created the mess in the first place. We will ask the richest in our country to pay more in every year of this Parliament than they paid in any year of the last Parliament. That is the truth.

David Amess: My mother, Maud, was very sad about the death of Baroness Thatcher, but she was delighted that my right hon. Friend committed our party to a referendum on our relationship with the European Union. Given that my mother will be 101 next Thursday, she wondered whether the referendum could be brought forward.

David Cameron: I send my fond regards to my hon. Friend’s mum and wish her a long, happy and healthy life. I remind her that if she votes Conservative in 2015, she will have the in/out referendum that the country deserves.

Edward Miliband: First, I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie Jonathan Webb of 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment. He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and friends.
	People are hearing today about patients waiting on trolleys in A and E, in some cases for more than 12 hours. We have even heard of one hospital pitching a treatment tent outside its premises. What does the Prime Minister have to say to those patients who are waiting hour upon hour in A and E?

David Cameron: First of all, this Government believe in our NHS and are expanding funding in our NHS. We will not take the advice of the Labour party, which thought that the increases in spending on the NHS were irresponsible. That is its view. We will go on investing in our NHS. With 1 million extra patients visiting A and E every year, we need to continue hitting the important targets that we have so that people are treated promptly.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister obviously does not realise that he is singularly failing to meet the targets that he has set himself. The number of people waiting more than four hours in A and E is nearly three times higher than when he came to office. First he downgraded the A and E target. Now he is not even hitting it. As he approaches his third anniversary as Prime Minister, he needs to explain why an A and E crisis is happening on his watch.

David Cameron: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. For the whole of last year, we met the target for A and E attendance. That is the fact. The number of
	occasions on which it was breached in the last year— 15 times—is lower than the 23 times that it was breached when he was in power in 2008. Those are the facts.
	The other point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is one part of the country where Labour has been in charge of the NHS for the past three years. That is in Wales, where no A and E target has been hit since 2009. Perhaps he will apologise for that.

Edward Miliband: Let me give the Prime Minister the figures. In 2009-10, 340,000 people waited longer than four hours in A and E. Last year, it was 888,000 people. If he wants to talk about records, the Labour Government left office with higher patient satisfaction than ever before in the NHS, lower waiting lists than ever before in the NHS and more doctors and nurses than ever before in the NHS.
	Part of the problem is that the Prime Minister’s replacement for the NHS Direct service is in total chaos. He now has a patchwork, fragmented service in which, over Easter, 40% of calls were abandoned because they were not answered. What is he going to do about it?

David Cameron: If anyone wants a reminder of Labour’s record on the NHS, they only have to read the report into the Stafford hospital.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentions the number of people waiting a long time for NHS operations. That number has come down since this Government came to office. The fact that he cannot ignore is that since this Government came to office, there are 1 million more people walking into A and E and half a million more people having in-patient treatments. The fact is that waiting times are stable or down, waiting lists are down and the NHS is performing better under this Government than it ever did under Labour.

Edward Miliband: Let me just say that what happened at Stafford was terrible, and both of us talked about that on the day, but what a disgraceful slur on the transformation of the NHS that took place after 1997 and the doctors and nurses who made that happen.
	The main reason why the Prime Minister is failing to meet his A and E target month after month is that he decided to take £3 billion away from the front line in a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for. As a result, there are 4,500 fewer nurses than when he came to power. Can he explain how it is helping care in the NHS to be giving nurses their P45s?

David Cameron: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is clearly in complete denial about what happened to the NHS under Labour. Let me just remind him what his spending plans are. His shadow Health Secretary was asked,
	“does he stand by his comment that it is irresponsible to increase NHS spending?”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 332.]
	He said, “Yes, I do.” That is Labour’s official policy—to cut spending on the NHS, just like it is cutting spending on the NHS in Wales, where waiting times are up, waiting lists are up and quality is down. That is what is happening in the NHS under Labour.
	The Leader of the Opposition also mentions what we have done in terms of reorganisation. That reorganisation will see £4.5 billion extra put into the front line compared with the cuts from Labour.

Edward Miliband: Let me just say to the Prime Minister that he is the guy who cut NHS spending when he came into office and was told off by the head of the UK Statistics Authority for not being straight with people about it.
	A and E is the barometer of the NHS, and this Prime Minister might be totally out of touch, but that barometer is telling us that it is a system in distress. According to the Care Quality Commission, one in 10 hospitals do not have adequate staffing levels, and during the winter every hospital was at some point operating beyond the recommended safe level of bed occupancy. Hospitals are full to bursting. He is the Prime Minister. What is he going to do about it?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman’s answer is to cut NHS spending, whereas we are investing in it. Let me give him some simple facts about what has happened to the NHS under this Government: 6,000 more doctors; 7,000 fewer managers; 1 million more treated in A and E; half a million more day cases; mixed-sex wards, commonplace under Labour, virtually abolished; infection rates in our NHS at record low levels; and, as I said, waiting times for in-patients down and waiting times for out-patients stable—all of that happening under this coalition Government, a far better record than he could boast.

Edward Miliband: People up and down the country will have heard that this is a Prime Minister with no answer for the crisis in our A and E services across the country. There is a crisis in A and E, and it is no surprise: he has cut the number of nurses; his NHS helpline is in crisis; and he is wasting billions of pounds on a top-down reorganisation that he promised would not happen. The facts speak for themselves: the NHS is not safe in his hands.

David Cameron: Let us examine the NHS in Labour’s hands in Wales. Here are the figures. Is the NHS budget being increased? No, it is being cut by 8% by Labour. The last time the urgent cancer care treatment target was met in Wales was 2008. The last time A and E targets were met was 2009. The Welsh ambulance service has missed its call-out target for the last 10 months. And, of course, there is no cancer drugs fund. That is what you get under Labour: cuts to our NHS and longer waiting lists—and all the problems we saw at the Stafford hospital will be repeated over again.

James Wharton: Yesterday, figures showed that this Government had reduced the deficit by a third. Does the Prime Minister agree that to borrow and spend more, which the shadow Chancellor has confirmed will be Labour’s policy in 2015, would risk squandering that progress?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are operating in very tough times, but we have got the deficit down by a third, there are 1.25 million extra private sector jobs, and we have seen a record creation of new businesses in our country. The differences
	between the two parties is that we believe in cutting our deficit, whereas it is their official policy to put it up. If they did that, there would be higher interest rates, more businesses going bust and harder times for home owners. That is what Labour offers.

Angus Robertson: The Government are absolutely right to prioritise the combating of sexual violence in conflict in their chairmanship of the G8, but the Prime Minister would have more credibility on the subject if he did not accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from, and have private dinners at Downing street with, Mr Ian Taylor. Mr Taylor’s company, Vitol, has admitted having dealings with the notorious Serb war criminal Arkan, who was indicted for
	“wilfully causing great suffering, cruel treatment, murder, wilful killing, rape, other inhumane acts.”
	Will the Prime Minister stop hosting Mr Taylor at Downing street and give the money back?

David Cameron: First, let me thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s very commendable efforts to make sure that rape and sexual violence are no longer used as weapons of war and conflict. The Government are putting a huge impetus behind that through the G8. However, I have to say that I think it is totally regrettable that the hon. Gentleman tries to play some sort of political card in the rest of what he said.

Lee Scott: Does the Prime Minister agree that helping people who want to work hard is the right thing to do, that taking them out of tax altogether is the right thing to do, and that making work pay is the right thing to do—instead of insulting them, as some politicians have done by calling them trash?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is this Government who are on the side of hard-working families: we have kept interest rates low; we have frozen the council tax; we have cut income tax for 24 million people; we have taken more than 2 million people out of income tax altogether; and our welfare reforms—sadly, not supported by the Opposition—are making sure that work always pays.

Sharon Hodgson: Today’s Daily Telegraph reports that 1 million people have been declared fit for work by the Department for Work and Pensions. Does that include people like my constituent, Michael Moore, who, despite multiple illnesses and disability, was declared fit for work in July 2011? Mr Speaker, Michael died in February this year, aged just 56.

David Cameron: Obviously, I am very sorry, on behalf of the whole House, about the loss of the hon. Lady’s constituent, but I am sure that she—and, indeed, I would have thought everyone in this House—would accept that it is necessary to have a system to check who is available for work, and who is able to work and who is not. The whole point of the employment and support allowance programme is that we can judge those people who can work but who need extra help and those who cannot work, who should always be looked after. I find
	it extraordinary that heads are shaking among Labour Members; I thought it was the Labour party, not the welfare party.

Amber Rudd: It is essential that this Government continue with much-needed welfare reform because, coupled with the tremendous increase in private sector jobs of 1.25 million, it is having a real effect in Hastings and Rye, with unemployment falling from 7.4% to 6.8%. Could I urge the Prime Minister to stay on this track and make the difficult decisions when he has to for the good of this country, and not to listen to the voices opposite, which have only one thing to suggest: borrow, borrow, borrow?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that since the election, the number of people on out-of-work benefits has fallen by 270,000. It is essential that we continue with programmes to boost enterprise, but also to make work pay. We should not listen to the Opposition on issues such as the benefit cap, when the shadow Chancellor was on the radio last week saying that £26,000 was an unfair cap. People across this country will be incredulous that that is the Labour position, but it is.

Stephen Hepburn: Bankers’ bonuses at £15 billion; executive boardroom pay up by 27%; tax cuts for millionaires; tax cuts for wealthy corporations—and the ordinary members of the public have got to pay for it. When is the Prime Minister going to represent all the people in the country and not just his privileged chums?

David Cameron: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what this Government have done. We have taken 2 million of the lowest-paid people out of income tax altogether. We have delivered a tax cut for 24 million people. We have frozen the fuel duty. We are freezing the council tax up and down the country, and if people want to make an impact, they should vote Conservative on 2 May to make sure they keep their council tax down.

Richard Ottaway: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his support for the exhibition on modern slavery in the Upper Waiting Hall? Two hundred years after it was abolished, slavery—modern slavery—continues throughout the United Kingdom. It is about the buying and selling of people, and it is the second most lucrative crime in the world. Can he confirm that his Government will continue to engage with this issue?

David Cameron: I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend says. This is an immensely serious issue and I pay tribute to the all-party group in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. Anyone who thinks that slavery was effectively abolished in 1807 has got another think coming. I would urge Members, if they have not seen this excellent exhibition in that chamber in the House of Commons, to go and see it, and see all the different ways that people can be trapped into slavery. It is notable that it is not just people who are being trafficked from eastern Europe or elsewhere. There are examples of slavery
	involving British citizens in this country being put into forced labour. It is an excellent exhibition and there is more for the Government to do.

Susan Elan Jones: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be kind enough to tell the House how much he will benefit personally from the scrapping of the 50p tax rate?

David Cameron: As I have said before, I will pay every appropriate tax, but like everybody else, every single taxpayer in this country is benefiting from the rise in the personal allowance that we have put in place. Everyone can benefit from a freeze in the council tax. Everyone can benefit from what we have done on fuel duty—and everyone would pay the price of another Labour Government.

James Duddridge: The Government’s cap on benefits has already incentivised 8,000 people back into work. Does this not demonstrate how important welfare reform is, getting people back to work and making work pay—a policy opposed by the Opposition?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The measures on welfare reform we are taking, such as the benefit cap, the 1% increase, making sure that people are available for work and making sure that people cannot get jobseeker’s allowance unless they take proper steps to find a job, are all about fairness in our country and making work pay. What is interesting is that every single one of those welfare changes—even the proposal to stop paying housing benefit of, sometimes, up to £100,000 to a single family—has one thing in common: they have been opposed by the Labour party.

Tristram Hunt: On the subject of jobs, last week 21 Tory MEPs voted against the EU emissions trading scheme, meaning that British industry will face much higher energy prices than its European competitors, threatening jobs and investment. When will the Prime Minister get a grip of his party and stand up for British business?

David Cameron: I thought the hon. Gentleman might start by thanking the Chancellor for the move taken in the Budget to help very important businesses in his constituency with excessive energy costs, but clearly the milk of human kindness is running a bit thinly with him. I have to say, if we are going to get into lectures about MEPs, perhaps he could get his to stop voting against the British rebate.

Tim Farron: The Prime Minister will be aware that last week, three people in Cumbria were arrested for apparently blowing the whistle in the public interest over the actions of the police commissioner. Does he agree that that is a threat to freedom of speech and an outrage in a democratic society, and will he intervene to ensure there is an independent investigation?

David Cameron: I will look carefully at that case. In general we should support whistleblowers and what they do to help improve the provision of public services, and I will have a look at this case and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Smith: The wilful neglect of residents in their care homes is a crime, but too often the victims and their families do not get justice. Time and again we have seen injury, abuse and sometimes death. Given that this is the Prime Minister’s third anniversary, when will we have a law that is fit for purpose?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. Over the past few years we have seen some shocking examples, not just of malpractice but—let us be frank—of crime taking place in our care homes, and a number of investigations are under way. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that the Care Quality Commission is up to the task of investigating those homes properly and has robust structures in place. That was not what we found when we came to office. In terms of ensuring that criminal law is available, it is already available and when there are bad examples, the police and prosecuting authorities can intervene and they should do so.

Caroline Nokes: Sixty-two people have died using DNP, a highly toxic herbicide that is banned for use as a slimming drug but easily available online alongside other dubious slimming products. What commitment can my right hon. Friend give that he will work across Government to ensure that that trade is stopped, and in so doing, help to prevent the deaths of more young people?

David Cameron: Like many people, this morning I read about the tragic case of the girl who died from taking this substance, and one can only think of the heartache that her family, and other families, go through when such things happen. I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says. This is not an easy issue because the substance is banned as a slimming drug but, as I understand it, is legal as a herbicide. As she says, we must look carefully across Government at what more we can do to warn people about these things.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Was the Prime Minister consulted on the decision to reject the appointment of Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson to the chair of Sport England?

David Cameron: These decisions are, quite rightly, made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and I think she has reached a very good decision.

Nick de Bois: The Government’s commitment to the armed forces covenant is something that Conservative Members are immensely proud of. The Prime Minister will also be aware of the community covenant, launched by the British Legion, to which 300 local authorities have signed up, although sadly not Enfield council in my constituency or another 132 authorities. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging those councils to sign the covenant locally and help support work across the constituency, particularly before Armed Forces day?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. My local authority in Oxfordshire was one of the first to sign up to the community covenant, with all the responsibilities that we feel we
	have for those stationed around RAF Brize Norton, the biggest airbase in the country. I urge all local authorities to look at this issue. The armed forces covenant is a real breakthrough for our country and a way in which we can all show respect for what our armed forces and their families do. I also commend the fact that the Government are using the LIBOR fines to help fund some powerful elements of the armed forces covenant. It means that those people who behaved badly in our economy—some of the banks—are paying for some of those who behave the best.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Prime Minister explain the eleventh-hour postponement of universal credit pilots, and is it the beginning of the unravelling of his unworkable and unfair welfare reform proposals?

David Cameron: I hate to correct the hon. Lady, but the pilots are going ahead, starting in parts of north-west England. I think it is important to have proper pilots and proper evaluation of pilots. We want to learn the lesson of some of the failures of the tax credit system, which was brought in with a big bang but ended up with big disaster. It is right that we are piloting, and as the Secretary of State said, the programme is on target and on budget.

Bob Russell: Council tax payers in Essex paid £5,000 for the then leader of the county council and his cronies to attend the Conservative party conference. That was one of hundreds of dodgy transactions using council credit cards spread over eight years, totalling around £500,000 at an average of more than £1,000 a week, which include 60-plus overseas visits to Australia and Vietnam, among other places. Does the Prime Minister agree that such extravagant misuse of public money should be the subject of an independent inquiry?

David Cameron: It is obviously important that all such issues are properly looked into, but I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. We are frequently in agreement, but on this issue, I believe that, if people in Essex want good value for money, it is important that they back the Conservatives.

Robert Flello: The Prime Minister believes that food banks are a good example of the big society. Last year, 7,400 people across Stoke-on-Trent, including 2,600 children, needed food banks just to stop them from starving. From this week, owing to his welfare changes, food banks have been forced to restrict food to families with children and people over the age of 65. Is it not true that the Prime Minister has failed Britain, and that his big society is overwhelmed?

David Cameron: I am disappointed in what the hon. Gentleman says, because in 2003, the previous Government gave the Trussell Trust, the organisation behind Britain’s food banks, a golden jubilee award for voluntary service. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), whom I am glad to see in his place, said that the Trussell Trust’s
	“outstanding voluntary activity has enhanced and improved the quality of life and opportunity for others in the community.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 10WS.]
	Of course, these are difficult times—food bank use went up 10 times under Labour—but I think we should praise people who play a role in our society rather than sneer at them.

John Stevenson: The chief executive of Cumbria county council is to leave the authority with an agreed package. I believe that the package will be substantial, and that it will run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Does the Prime Minister agree that that and similar arrangements are difficult for the public to accept, and that they are certainly not a good use of taxpayers’ money?

David Cameron: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. We now require councils to publish their pay policies, and councils should vote on those deals so that they can vote against excessive ones. That change has happened under this Government, but I urge all councils, of whatever political persuasion, to look at what they can do to share chief executives and finance directors, and to combine their back-office costs. Everybody knows that public spending reductions would have to be made whoever is in Government. Let us make them by taking it out of the back office rather than the front line.

Sandra Osborne: Is the Prime Minister aware that Scottish Coal went into liquidation last weekend, and that 600 hard-working people in Scotland have lost their jobs, the majority of which are in my constituency? The Tories closed the deep mines during the 1980s. Will the Prime Minister stand behind the open cast industry today, or will it just be the same old Tories?

David Cameron: I am happy to look at what the hon. Lady says. We want to support all our industries in Britain, including the coal industry, whether in Scotland or in England. Obviously, since the election, the number of people in work in Scotland has gone up, but we need to see that go further and faster. I am happy to look at the particular industrial example she gives.

Pauline Latham: On Monday, my right hon. Friend came to Derbyshire to support our council candidates for the next election, but at the same time, he visited a manufacturing company. Does he agree that getting manufacturing companies such as the ones in my constituency to continue to export and to expand their exports is our best way out of recession?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Duresta, the furniture manufacturer that I visited, has seen its sales increase by almost 20% over the past year. It is going into new export markets, investing in apprenticeships and doing all of the things the Government are backing and supporting. We want to back many more firms to do exactly that. Her wider point is also right: people in Derbyshire who want another year of a council tax freeze need to vote very carefully on 2 May.

Joan Walley: Will the Prime Minister give careful consideration to the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee
	report on bees, other pollinators and pesticides? On Monday next week, will he give his Government’s backing to the European Commission’s proposed moratorium on the use of three neonicotinoids?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what the hon. Lady says. I am the life patron of the Oxfordshire Beekeepers’ Association. I think I have been neglecting my duties in not being able to give her a better answer today, but I know how important this issue is. If we do not look after our bee populations, very serious consequences will follow.

Julian Huppert: Today sees the publication of the all-party cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”, which calls for leadership from the very top on this issue. Will the Prime Minister look at the report, make sure that he produces a cross-departmental action plan and give his personal commitment and leadership to get Britain cycling? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members on both sides are very discourteous to the good doctor. I cannot for the life of me fathom why there are groans whenever I call the good doctor, but it is very unsatisfactory.

David Cameron: I do not always agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but on this occasion he is absolutely right and the House should heed what he says: we should be doing much more to encourage cycling. The report has many good points. I commend what the Mayor of London has done in London to promote cycling, and I hope local authorities can follow his lead in making sure that we do more.

Barry Gardiner: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the deep shade of red he turned when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) whether he had been consulted on the appointment of Tanni Grey-Thompson was actually in place of the answer “Yes”?

David Cameron: We have an excellent new head of both Sport England and UK Sport—that is what matters. These are decisions for the Secretary of State, and it is absolutely right that she takes them.

Stephen Metcalfe: Does the Prime Minister agree that one does not solve a debt crisis by borrowing more, and that for the Opposition to have any credibility they need to acknowledge the mess they made, apologise to my constituents, and just say sorry?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the Government Benches, we know we have to get borrowing down. Frankly, in the past week what we have seen is the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in his true colours: too weak to stand up to the shadow Chancellor on the deficit, too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers on welfare, and too weak to stand up to the trade unions on just about anything. It was a week in which he said goodbye to David Miliband and hello to George Galloway. No wonder Tony Blair said that they are fellow travellers, not leaders. He was absolutely right.

Abu Qatada

Mr Speaker: I call Secretary Theresa May. The right hon. Lady has wisely waited for calm. I hope that that is what we now have.

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the case of Abu Qatada.
	As the whole House will know, successive Governments have sought the deportation of this dangerous man since 2001. The prospect of his deportation now depends on one very narrow issue: the question of whether evidence obtained through the mistreatment of others might be used against him in his home country of Jordan. In January last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there was indeed such a risk, and therefore blocked his deportation. Following that ruling, the British Government sought from the Jordanian Government further information and assurances not just in relation to the treatment of Qatada himself, but about the quality of the legal processes that would be followed throughout his trial.
	Although the Special Immigration Appeals Commission noted that the Jordanian Government
	“will do everything within their power to ensure that a retrial is fair”,
	in November last year it ruled that there was still a risk that a trial in Jordan would breach Qatada’s rights under article 6 of the European convention. Since then, the Government have pursued a twin strategy: first, to appeal SIAC’s decision; and secondly to work with the Jordanian Government to seek further assurances to convince the courts that Qatada would indeed receive a fair trial. I want to take each of those approaches in turn.
	First, I shall deal with the Government’s appeal. On 27 March, the Court of Appeal confirmed SIAC’s interpretation of the law and ruled that we could not deport Abu Qatada to Jordan under present conditions. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal refused the Government’s application to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. The Government disagree with that ruling, and I can tell the House that we will now seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court itself.
	Secondly, I can tell the House that I have signed a comprehensive mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan. This agreement is fully reciprocal, offers considerable advantages to both countries and reflects our joint commitment to tackling international crime. It covers assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation and prosecution of crimes in either country and provides a framework for assistance in the restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It also includes a number of fair trial guarantees that would apply to anyone being deported from either country. I believe that these guarantees will provide the courts with the assurance that Qatada will not face evidence that might have been obtained by torture in a re-trial in Jordan.
	Before the agreement can come into force and become a formal treaty, it must be ratified by both countries, and the Jordanian Government will be laying the draft treaty before its Parliament shortly. In the United Kingdom,
	the agreement does not require any changes to our domestic law, but it must be placed before both Houses for 21 sitting days before it is ratified. So I can confirm that the text of the treaty has been laid before both Houses today, and, depending on the date of Parliament’s prorogation, we expect the 21 days to be completed before the end of June. Under Jordanian law, once ratified the provisions of the treaty will take primacy over existing Jordanian law in cases such as Qatada’s. We therefore believe that the treaty will deliver the protections required by SIAC to secure Qatada’s deportation.
	I believe that the treaty we have agreed with Jordan, once ratified by both Parliaments, will finally make possible the deportation of Abu Qatada, but as I have warned the House before, even when the treaty is fully ratified, it will not mean that Qatada will be on a plane to Jordan within days. We will be able to issue a new deportation decision, but Qatada will still have legal appeals available to him, and it will therefore be up to the courts to make the final decision. That legal process may well still take many months, but in the meantime I believe that Qatada should remain behind bars.
	Lastly, I would like to say this: as any sane observer of this case will conclude, it is absurd for the deportation of a suspected foreign terrorist to take so many years and cost the taxpayer so much money. That is why we need to make sense of our human rights laws and remove the many layers of appeals available to foreign nationals we want to deport. In the meantime, however, the Government are doing everything they can to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan. I believe that this treaty gives us every chance of succeeding in that aim, so I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
	The Home Secretary and the courts have agreed that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man who puts security in this country at risk, and the House is united in wanting him deported to stand fair trial in Jordan so that justice can be done and in wanting him to remain in prison in the meantime. I welcome the work that she continues to do to get Abu Qatada deported and the further assurances that she has sought from Jordan, although she will know that the history of Home Office problems in this area means that serious questions remain.
	The Home Secretary referred to the European Court judgment of January 2012, which she has previously said she strongly disagrees with. Once that passed, she had two choices: to appeal against its conclusions about the level of proof that the British Government needed to provide before Abu Qatada could be deported or to provide enough evidence from Jordan that she could meet that level of proof. So far, the Home Office has not managed to do either. I welcome this further work with Jordan, but the question for the House and the Court will be whether it meets the specific test that the Court has set.
	The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled six months ago:
	“Until and unless a change is made to the…Code of Criminal Procedure and/or authoritative rulings are made by the Court of Cassation or Constitutional Court which establish that statements
	made to a public prosecutor by accomplices who are no longer subject to criminal proceedings cannot be admitted probatively against a returning fugitive and/or that it is for the prosecutor to prove to a high standard that the statements were not procured by torture, that real risk will remain.”
	Will the Home Secretary tell us more about how the new mutual legal assistance agreement will meet those tests? The treaty refers to the obligation on the prosecution, but will she explain whether and how this will be an equivalent of a change to the code of criminal procedure, and whether it will supersede any ruling made by the court of cassation or the constitutional court? We wish the Home Secretary well with the mutual legal assistance treaty, and we hope that it will work. We will support it in the House, and suggest that we hold a debate and a vote in the Commons to demonstrate the strength of support that exists across the House.
	Let me ask the Home Secretary more about her approach to the European Court. Everyone agrees that the European Courts have taken way too long over this, as did the British courts—that has rightly been seen as a source of frustration for Home Secretaries—but will she tell us again why she chose, in January 2012, not to appeal against the judgment that she said she disagreed with? I ask her again to show shadow Ministers and the relevant Select Committee Chairs, on Privy Council terms, the legal advice on why she did not appeal. Until she does so, doubts will remain about her legal strategy and about the credibility of her criticism of the European Court.
	Will the Home Secretary also tell us whether she is planning to withdraw temporarily from the European convention on human rights, as has been suggested in briefings from No. 10 to the media, and how she would justify such a decision when she has chosen not to appeal against the European Court’s decisions?
	The Home Secretary must forgive us for being cautious about her claims and assurances today when some of her previous promises on this matter have been overblown. Twelve months ago, we remember the media being invited to Abu Qatada’s arrest as she told the House that
	“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 173.]
	However, within 24 hours, the process had stalled. We also remember her saying last year:
	“The Government are clear that Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 507.]
	However, the European Court said that the request had been submitted within the three-month time limit. And 12 months ago, she also told us:
	“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175.]
	Today, however, we are back to a legal square one again, going through the deportation process.
	We want to work with the Home Secretary to make the process work, so that Abu Qatada can be deported as soon as possible. In the past, however, she has
	overstated the evidence, overstated her legal position, and overstated her legal strategy, which has not worked. None of us wants that to happen again.

Theresa May: May I say in response to the shadow Home Secretary’s first question that she should perhaps listen to what she herself said in her statement? She said that SIAC had suggested that there should be a change to a number of aspects of Jordanian law and/or a change to the obligations on the prosecutor. It is such a change to the obligations on the prosecutor that is in the mutual legal assistance agreement that I have signed with Jordan and that has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and that will therefore deal with that particular issue.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the failure to appeal to the European Court. She has raised that issue before and I have answered her before. She seems to think that I should have appealed to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, but that would have jeopardised the Government’s wider deportation with assurances programme and risked the blockage of many other deportation cases. She should also look at what she has previously said on this issue. What she is saying today is not what she was saying last year. In this House, on 17 April last year, she said of me:
	“I welcome the assurances that she has obtained from Jordan. Previous agreements were in place, but she was right to pursue further assurances.”
	If she thought we should have appealed to the Grand Chamber, why did she think that we needed to pursue those assurances? If that is not clear, she should also remember what else she said:
	“We understand, too, that the Home Secretary believes it is too risky to appeal to the Grand Chamber. I understand she would have had legal advice on that, and I do not want her to pursue an unwise and risky process”.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the relationship with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The House will know that it is my clear view that we need to fix that relationship and that all options, including leaving the convention altogether, should be on the table. The Prime Minister is looking at all options, and that is the only sensible thing to do.
	There are a number of questions for the right hon. Lady. She talked about why this did not happen sooner, and we have heard all sorts of claims from the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Immigration Minister about what I have said. A year ago, I said in this House:
	“hon. Members must be aware that”
	what I was announcing at that time
	“does not necessarily mean that he”—
	Abu Qatada—
	“will be on a plane to Jordan within days. There is still a potential avenue of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission court, and beyond. That appeal process could take many months”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175-6.]
	I have to tell the right hon. Lady that simply repeating something and wanting it to be true does not make it true; she should look at what was actually said here.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady herself has to answer some questions. Does she support what the Government have done? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she wants a vote. I am asking her very clearly whether she believes that the Government have taken the right course
	of action in what we have done. Beyond that, will the Opposition support what we want to do, which is to strip out appeal rights for foreign nationals, or not? Will we have a cross-party agreement that we need to deal with the issue of the length of time deportations take? We could do that by taking out layers of appeal. Perhaps even more significantly, will the Opposition agree with us that we need to sort out our human rights laws, which were passed by their Government?
	This mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan has clauses within it that, as I say, address the issue raised by the SIAC court and the European Court about Abu Qatada. I hope that the right hon. Lady will support the Government—not just on this case, but in sorting out our human rights laws and our processes of deportation.

John Redwood: Given the way in which successive British Governments have been made to look impotent by the European convention and regime, when will my right hon. Friend bring proposals before this House to ensure that the will of Parliament and of the overwhelming majority of the British people can be upheld, common sense applied and justice delivered in these difficult cases?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend will have to wait and see what we intend and are able to bring to this House. I have already indicated that I intend to address some of these issues in a new immigration Bill if parliamentary time allows for it.

Alan Johnson: Abu Qatada’s legal team have used the Human Rights Act 1998 to suggest that if extradition took place, evidence gained through torture would be used in a trial against him. Surely his team would have more success if it changed tack and argued that Abu Qatada might commit suicide, in which case they would have the support of the Home Secretary.

Theresa May: I do not think that that intervention was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: I support the Home Secretary’s attempts to deport Abu Qatada and her respect for the courts, even though Governments sometimes clearly disagree with their decisions. Given that agreement with Jordan could be a game changer—in this case and in others—is there an intention to seek similar agreements with other countries where these issues arise? Will she update us on her intention to look again at prosecuting Abu Qatada in this country, which I know she was investigating at the end of last year?

Theresa May: On the first issue, we have a number of deportation with assurances agreements that we have signed with other countries, and deportations have been possible under them. Mutual legal assistance agreements also exist with a number of other countries. A very particular point has been raised by the courts in respect of one case, but we will obviously look at the wider implications.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, as he will know, we have always made it clear that we will continue to consider whether there is any prospect of
	our prosecuting Abu Qatada here in the United Kingdom. The Metropolitan police are investigating the issue of the breach of bail conditions, and the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on an ongoing police investigation.

Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary has rightly said that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man who should remain behind bars. How confident is she that the bail conditions can be sustained for a lengthy period, given that the appeals will no doubt continue for many months? If she is not able to sustain them—because they will be challenged by Abu Qatada’s team—does she intend to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure on him, involving the maximum restrictions, so that we can ensure that he is not free to walk the streets of this country?

Theresa May: Given her experience, the right hon. Lady will know that we do not comment publicly on whether or not we intend to impose TPIMs on individuals. If an application for bail is made, the Home Office will vigorously defend its belief, and my belief, that Abu Qatada should remain behind bars.

Nadine Dorries: What is the worst thing that could happen to us if we did just put Abu Qatada on a plane? If it is a fine or incurring the displeasure of the European Court of Human Rights, would it not be best for us to withdraw temporarily, put him on a plane, and then rejoin?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend and others have been raising the possibility of our simply defying our international legal obligations and putting Abu Qatada on a plane for some time. My answer to her today is the same as the answer that I have given to others in the past: I believe that the UK Government should abide by the rule of law.

Keith Vaz: This has turned into a political and judicial farce. The Home Secretary has spent a huge amount of time on the issue, and she must feel very let down by the Home Office silks who kept telling her that there was enough evidence to remove Abu Qatada. While of course I welcome the treaty that she has signed, it does seem extraordinary that we have conducted a treaty with a foreign Government just to remove one individual. Is she satisfied that that will be enough, or does she think that it will be necessary for her to go to Jordan to deal with any other outstanding points? Can she also assure us that if the Court wants to hear from the Jordanian Government as an amicus curiae, the Jordanian Government will be able to put representations directly to it?

Theresa May: I have made it clear at every stage that we should continue to talk to the Jordanian Government, and should do our utmost to ensure that we can achieve what is wanted by every Member in the Chamber, and, I believe, by all members of the public, namely the deportation of Abu Qatada. We have been clear about our twin-track approach, and we continue that approach.
	I must challenge the right hon. Gentleman on one point. As I said, we have signed a wide-ranging mutual legal assurance agreement with the Jordanian Government, which will affect the deportations of individuals in both
	directions regardless of whether or not they are Abu Qatada. It so happens that within that agreement are fair trial guarantees that could be applied in the case of Abu Qatada, but the agreement itself is a wider document, which has been signed by the two Governments and which, following full ratification in both the Jordanian Parliament and our Parliament, will take the status of a treaty.

Robert Halfon: All that my constituents see are judges who are ignoring the will of Parliament, ignoring the cost to the taxpayer, and ignoring the victims of terrorism. Is it not time for us to change the law and extricate ourselves from all the human rights legislation, so that this sort of thing never happens again?

Theresa May: As I have made clear both in the Chamber and outside it, I believe that we need to think about our relationship with the European convention on human rights and European Court of Human Rights. I believe that while we are members of the convention and subject to the Court, we should abide by the rule of law—that is what people would expect the Government to do—but I also believe that we need to change the relationship, and that everything should be on the table in that regard.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the influence of the European convention on human rights over many years has been beneficial in outlawing questioning under torture and protecting the human rights of many people throughout Europe, including people in this country? Does she also recognise that persuading Jordan to accept a non-torture clause in the putative treaty that she has presented to the House was a product of the values of the European convention? Is it not the case that we should be talking not about leaving it, but about extending the values contained in it to the rest of the world if we can possibly do so?

Theresa May: The European convention was signed for a particular purpose. Over the years, the European Court has itself interpreted the convention in particular ways, and I believe that when it raised the issue of Abu Qatada and article 6, it moved the goalposts.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned torture in connection with Jordan and the agreement that has been signed. I remind him that the Jordanian Government themselves changed their constitution to outlaw torture. The case of Abu Qatada went before SIAC, and SIAC reached the judgment that it did, because the case law had not been tested at that stage. The Jordanian Government themselves took the step of outlawing torture, and I think that we should congratulate them on the changes that they have already made in their legal system.

Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary has to convince the Supreme Court that her case raises an arguable point of law of general public importance. Should she not therefore put the key constitutional question: is Strasbourg entitled to move the goalposts, or does our Supreme Court have the last word?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions and question-and-answer sessions relating to this issue, not least in the Home Affairs Committee last week. At the heart of the point that he has raised today is the issue of the relationship between Britain and the European Court of Human Rights.
	As I have already said in answer to other questions, I believe that we should consider all the options, and that that should include leaving the jurisdiction of the Court altogether. However, we are currently signatories to the convention and must abide by its rulings, and I believe that Governments must abide by the law. Even if we were to ignore the Court and put Abu Qatada on a plane regardless of its ruling—and I do not believe that we would be able to do so in practice—we would risk being ordered by the Court to bring him back to Britain and pay him compensation. Worse than that, as soon as we started to ignore our obligations under international law, we would not be able to rely on other countries’ obligations to us under international law. I think that that would jeopardise our national security and, indeed, jeopardise many other deportation cases.
	I fully understand the frustration felt by my hon. Friend and others who share his views, but our options involve operating within the law, and I believe that we should operate within the law or change the law. Dare I describe urging the Government to break the law as a rather reckless step?

Stephen McCabe: The Home Secretary has now discovered how difficult it is to put this man on a plane to Jordan. Given the possibility that her latest efforts will be thwarted, has she considered trying to negotiate a fair trial on neutral territory in order to overcome objections, using a model similar to the one that was used to bring the Libyan bomber to justice?

Theresa May: The suggestion that we have suddenly discovered how difficult it is to deport Abu Qatada is wide of the mark. That has been absolutely clear from the beginning. What I myself have made clear from the beginning is that we need to follow the processes of law. It has taken time and it will continue to take time, but I believe that it is the right thing to do, and that it will mean that we can eventually deport him.

Tessa Munt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeking a solution to this vexing situation. Do the fair trial guarantees in the comprehensive mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan match the standards for fair trial under the English court system? If so, does that not constitute a huge improvement for those who face trial as British subjects in Jordan?

Theresa May: Obviously, the mutual legal assistance agreement, which when ratified will become a treaty, provides for people other than Abu Qatada. It is a general agreement on fair trial arrangements, the exchange of information and other issues. It provides that in all cases, whether for somebody being deported to Jordan from the UK who is not Abu Qatada or for deportations the other way round.

David Winnick: Is it not obvious that this saga will continue for some time and that all the Home Secretary’s efforts have so far failed miserably to get this preacher of hatred out of Britain?
	Following on from an earlier question and some of the questions I have asked previously, why cannot the appropriate authorities look at prosecution in this country not just for breach of bail conditions but for some of the remarks he is alleged to have made that clearly incite race hatred? Like me, many people must find it difficult to understand why no attempt is being made to prosecute him in the United Kingdom.

Theresa May: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that prosecution has always been alongside the other activities that the Government are undertaking. It is looked at. At the moment, we have an active police investigation, on which it is not appropriate for me to comment. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman’s question seems to imply, that prosecution has never previously been considered. I remind him that, as he well knows, prosecution is not a matter for the Home Secretary; it is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

Michael Ellis: Does the Home Secretary realise that she has massive support from the British people for the work she has been doing to get rid of an odious man from this country? She has that support because people recognise the frustrations involved in the processes, thanks to the Labour Government’s human rights legislation. I congratulate her on the mutual legal assistance arrangements with Jordan, and I recommend that she continues on her course; eventually it will succeed and we will rid this country of a dangerous and odious man.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: everybody wants to see Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. It is frustrating that it has taken so long. As I said in my statement, the process started in 2001, so it is not something that has suddenly come up for this Government. We have been taking steps and we have progressed, in that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission accepted the assurances from the Jordanian Government in a number of areas in relation to a retrial. We still have the single point to deal with, and I believe that the mutual legal assistance agreement will provide widely for deportations between both countries and will also deal with the point about Abu Qatada.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State rightly emphasised that, under present conditions, the SIAC ruling prevents her from deporting Qatada. Presumably, the comprehensive treaty with Jordan is designed to meet the circumstances to which SIAC refers. I assume that we cannot go back to SIAC for a revision of the ruling, although perhaps she will confirm that point, but perhaps we can use at the Supreme Court the arguments she has made today. If we cannot, this saga will run on and on, and will become an increasing farce, to the embarrassment of the whole House and to her in particular.

Theresa May: I remind the hon. Gentleman that as I said in my statement, we continue to adopt a twin-track approach. He referred to the Supreme Court. Obviously, we are seeking leave to appeal direct to the Supreme Court. If the appeal is accepted, the case will be on points of law in relation to the earlier SIAC judgment,
	and on only those points of law. Assuming that the treaty is ratified in both the Jordanian Parliament and this Parliament, it will enable me to make a fresh deportation decision about Abu Qatada.

Dominic Raab: As I understand it, this is the first time that a deportation order has been blocked on fair trial grounds under article 6. What assessment, if any, has the Home Office made of the number of claims likely to follow the judicial review, and will she commit to a Bill in the Queen’s Speech that unequivocally deals in primary legislation with article 6 and article 8 grounds for frustrating deportation orders?

Theresa May: As I said previously, parliamentary time allowing, I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill to deal with the matters that can be dealt with. As my hon. Friend rightly says, although we are focusing on article 6 today, there is also an article 8 issue. Despite the fact that last year the House unanimously approved changes to immigration rules in relation to article 8, Members will know that unfortunately one of the judges in the lower tribunal indicated that it was only a weak parliamentary debate, which is why I intend and expect to bring primary legislation to the House.

Kevin Brennan: It is remarkable that the Home Secretary has had to confirm to the House that she does not intend to break the law. Can she confirm whether she is considering temporary withdrawal from the European convention to deal with the case of one man? What would that do to our international reputation?

Theresa May: I note the comment the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks. I think it is important that a Home Secretary is willing to stand in the House and say that the Government should abide by the rule of law. There is an issue about the relationship between the Government and the European Court, but it is wider than this particular case. I believe that in dealing with that issue, all potential aspects should be on the table and should be considered.

Stewart Jackson: The framers of the European convention on human rights never intended that it should usurp the autonomy of UK jurisdiction or the sovereignty of Parliament. The Home Secretary needs to be bold and look at the example of other countries with regards to the efficacy of suspension from the European Court of Human Rights. Apart from the wilder shores of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour left, there is clearly settled consensus for that. My constituents and those of other hon. Members are fed up with waiting; we want proposals at the earliest opportunity.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises points and puts a view as he has done in the past. He has been consistent. We too are consistent in accepting that we need to change the relationship with the European Court and that we need to look again at the Human Rights Act. Conservative Members came into the House at the last election with a commitment to repeal the Act and I have every confidence that we will go into the next election with that commitment.

Ian Davidson: This farce makes the Government look incompetent as well as impotent. Can the Home Secretary tell me whether previously loyal Conservatives will have to vote for the UK Independence party before she pays attention to them?

Theresa May: I am really not sure what relevance that has to the signing of a mutual legal assistance agreement with the Jordanian Government. Over the last three years, the Government have taken every step at every stage to ensure that we reach the end point we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada.

Margot James: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her determination to remove that man, and on her commitment to do so within the law. She will be aware that many people believe that other countries that are signatories to the European convention act differently and can get rid of people who are a clear danger to their society. Does she think that the proposals she has outlined, including the removal of the layers of appeal available to foreign criminals, will reassure the public who hold that view?

Theresa May: While it is a view widely propounded that other countries find it easier to deport people, that view is not always based on as much fact as those who put it forward would like us to believe. It is important for us to shorten the deportation process. The steps we are looking at in relation to removing layers of appeal will both ensure that people have access to justice, which is important, and that we shorten the process so that we can deport people who are a danger to us rather more quickly than we have been able to do so far.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Her frustration is shared by all in the Chamber. In legal circles and in some of today’s press, it is stated that it may be necessary to suspend human rights legislation for six months to enable the deportation to happen. Can she confirm that that strategy is being considered as an option to ensure that the deportation of Abu Qatada can be completed?

Theresa May: In relation to the deportation of Abu Qatada, we are pursuing the twin track that I set out to the House. As I said, an important step has been taken with the signing of the wider-ranging mutual legal assistance agreement, but we retain the intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and we are seeking leave to do so. We are developing that twin track. The relationship between the Human Rights Act, the European Court and the European convention and the views of the UK and the Government is a wider issue and it is right that we look at all the options.

Peter Bone: I thank the Home Secretary for yet again coming to the House to keep us informed. Further to the question of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), surely the Secretary of State should be following a third way by giving notice to the Council of Europe that we intend to come out of the convention in six months’ time, meaning that we would be able to withdraw and act legally by deporting Abu Qatada. We would then have six months to see
	whether the other process that she outlined will work. Does she not think that it would be a good idea to give that notice to the Council of Europe today?

Theresa May: I think it is right that the Government pursue the twin-track path that I have set out. I never thought that I would see the day when my hon. Friend would stand in the House of Commons proposing that we adopt a middle way.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that there would be no human rights in Europe were it not for this country and its empire standing alone in 1940 against the forces of tyranny that threatened our continent, and that we need not be lectured about human rights by anyone else? Given the dysfunctionality of the discredited European convention, it is time for us to leave—and to leave now—and to establish our own Bill of Rights so that we can decide these things for ourselves.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the valiant stance that this country took against tyranny. He is also right to comment on the fact that we need to examine the relationship between this country and the European Court of Human Rights, which is of course part of the issue of the convention. I say to him, as I have said to everyone else, that all options are on the table, which include removing ourselves from the Court and the convention.

Andrew Turner: How much has this cost so far, and how much is it likely to cost in the future?

Theresa May: I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend a figure for the costs at this stage, although certain legal aid costs have been published. I undertook to inform the Home Affairs Committee of the position as best I can, because I was asked such a question at its sitting last week.

David Nuttall: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement; her evident exasperation will be widely reflected in my constituency. Even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling, what grounds are there to believe that the Supreme Court will overturn that decision, given that the Court of Appeal’s judgment stated that the contention that SIAC had erred in law was “particularly difficult to sustain”?

Theresa May: We will continue to argue on a point of law that we believe is arguable before the courts, notwithstanding the view taken by the Court of Appeal, but I cannot prejudge the decision that the Supreme Court will take. It is right that the Government continue to ask for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court so that, if the appeal is accepted, the case can be tested in the very highest court in the land.

Rehman Chishti: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which she has dealt with terrorists and suspected terrorists, because in the past three years, she has rescinded the British nationality of 16 individuals due to acts linked
	to terrorism that make it not conducive for them to be in this country, which is far more than any previous Secretary of State?

Theresa May: I note my hon. Friend’s comments. When we came into government, we were clear that we needed to ensure that we could act against extremists, including violent extremists, and we have been pursuing that in the way that he sets out, as well as though our policy of exclusions.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she has done? She has already managed to remove one extremist, Abu Hamza—he has slung his hook off to America—and I have every faith that her work will continue. However, my constituents are frustrated not only because it is so difficult to unpick Labour’s Human Rights Act, but because of reports of the benefits that Abu Qatada might well be receiving in this country. Has my right hon. Friend spoken to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that Abu Qatada is not getting anything to which he is not entitled?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, but may I say that an awful lot of work and effort is also being put in by Home Office officials and the Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? On the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I simply say that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers about such matters.

Eleanor Laing: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the widespread anger throughout the country about the amount of time it is taking to deal with this, but is she also aware that there is widespread understanding throughout the country, if not among every Member of the House, that there is an obligation on the Home Secretary and the Government to obey the law and abide by the decision of the courts, so we appreciate that she has no choice in the matter? Will she confirm that the Government’s position is made more difficult by the human rights legislation that the previous Labour Government passed in this House, although Labour Members take no responsibility whatsoever for the mess that we are in?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right to remind us that the previous Labour Government passed the Human Rights Act. Several Labour Members have spoken about dealing with human rights, but they brought the European convention into British legislation, and we will have to deal with that legislation if we are to sort out the wider issue of our relationship with the European Court.

Angie Bray: I welcome the arrangements that the Home Secretary is negotiating with Jordan. Does she agree that it is all very well for Opposition Members to carp and criticise in a typical fit of political opportunism, but that they should reflect on the massive contribution that they made to the mess in which we find ourselves? Indeed, what we would like from them is an apology.

Theresa May: One thing that we never seem to get from the Opposition, in any aspect of their policies, is an apology for what we had to inherit. The deportation of Abu Qatada has been considered by successive Governments since 2001. We have taken several steps that I believe have put us a position in which we will be able to achieve that end. I have been absolutely clear that rights of appeal will be available to Abu Qatada if a new deportation decision is issued, so the process could take many months—it will not be over quickly—but the Government have been absolutely right to take such action. We have reduced the issues that must be dealt with to this single point that we believe the agreement will address.

Gavin Barwell: It is a farce that it has taken so long—it will clearly take a while longer yet—to remove this individual, who we all agree is a danger. That farce damages faith in politics, plays into the hands of extremists and, tragically, undermines my constituents’ support for human rights legislation. In that context, may I warmly welcome what the Home Secretary says about changing the law so that we no longer find ourselves in the ridiculous position whereby the rights of one terror suspect seem to trump our constituents’ rights to live freely and safely?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. We should be able to balance the rights of the individual against the wider rights of society. I understand his point about his constituents’ attitude to human rights. Those who propounded the changes that took place need to understand the risk that the concept of human rights becomes discredited if people see it as being used consistently to stop us from deporting those who are a danger to this country.

Andrew Bridgen: My right hon. Friend has extradited several terrorist suspects from Britain, including Abu Hamza, so it is right that she maintains the same strong resolve to see Abu Qatada deported. Does she recall the number of years that the Labour party had in which to remove these dangerous individuals from our country and how it singularly failed to do so?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. As I said, Abu Qatada’s case started back in 2001 and we are attempting to achieve what the previous Government could not achieve. I believe we are closer to doing that as a result of the agreement that we have signed.

Stephen Metcalfe: My constituents consistently ask, “Why don’t we just stick this man on a plane and have done with it, regardless of what the European convention on human rights says?” Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that as much as we all want rid of this dreadful, odious little man, we all have greater benefit from living under a Government who stick to their own laws as they are in place at present?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. Many people say, “Why don’t you just put this individual on a plane?”, but that would not, I believe, be practically possible in relation to the action that the courts would take. Also, it is important—my hon. Friend says there are wider benefits—that the Government are willing to say that we abide not just by our rule of law, but by our international legal obligations.

Point of Order

Mark Reckless: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not consider that I received a proper reply from the Home Secretary to the question whether the Supreme Court should decide the key constitutional matter, as she descended to what some might describe as personal abuse. May I ask your advice as to whether this is an appropriate matter that I might seek to raise on the Adjournment?

Mr Speaker: Nothing unparliamentary has occurred. The hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind. It is entirely open to him to apply for an Adjournment debate which realistically, if it were granted, would be in the next Session. I know that he is dextrous in his use of parliamentary opportunities.

Chris Bryant: Ambidextrous.

Mr Speaker: I did not say he was ambidextrous. I said he was dextrous, but I am always grateful for the sedentary chuntering of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Planning Permission (Financial Penalties)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jeremy Lefroy: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local planning authorities to impose a mandatory financial penalty where planning permission has been deliberately breached; and for connected purposes.
	I recall, as a newly elected councillor in Newcastle-under-Lyme, being astonished to see a walled mansion being built in a particularly pleasant spot and being told by the ward member that, although it clearly contravened the planning permission that had been given, nothing could be done. Ever since then, I have been concerned about a lack of fairness in the planning system, or at least in its administration, which seems to impose considerable burdens on the vast majority of ordinary citizens who play by the rules, while the small minority who do not do so get away with the planning equivalent of murder.
	Judging by the fact that I have seen examples of this in all three planning authorities with which I have had a close connection—Newcastle under Lyme borough council, Stafford borough council and South Staffordshire district council—I believe this to be a widespread problem and not peculiar to a few areas. Indeed, I have been contacted by one council which highlighted some serious deliberate abuses of planning. Although the council welcomed the amendments through the Localism Act to the scale of fines that can be levied, it believes that these do not go far enough to act as a deterrent.
	The national planning policy framework states:
	“Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system.”
	It also states:
	“Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so.”
	The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce would require local authorities to impose substantial and proportionate fines on those who deliberately and clearly breached planning consent in such cases or who built without consent at all.
	The authority would clearly have discretion to determine whether the breach of consent was deliberate and clear, but it seems to me, as I am sure it does to most who have been involved in such matters, that it is not difficult to distinguish between an inadvertent and minor breach and one which is deliberate and clear.
	The Bill would also make it clear that a proportionate fine would remove all actual and potential financial gain made by the developer as a result of the deliberate breach of consent, and permit a penalty to be imposed in addition. Under my Bill, councils would be required to use the proceeds of fines to the benefit of the community in which the breach occurred, helping to restore public confidence in the planning system and delivering clear results from enforcement action.
	I am not seeking to impose new bureaucratic burdens on planning. No law-abiding citizen or development company would be caught by these provisions, nor would fines be imposed for slight, unintentional infringements of planning permission. Indeed, law-abiding citizens are likely to welcome proper fines being imposed on those who decide to break the law by breaching planning permission. Everyone who goes through the planning process knows that it can be time-consuming and expensive, but they also know, or should know, that they are being required to do what everyone else must do in order either to preserve the character of the built environment in which they live or as part of developments in their community which have been agreed upon through the democratic process. If people see wilful breaches of planning permission, or development with no permission at all and no sanction imposed, they understandably feel aggrieved. The result is that the planning system comes into disrepute and there is a strong sense of injustice.
	Clearly, I also want to see a more efficient planning system with fewer delays and unnecessary costs, and it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to achieve this. There must be a carrot as well as a stick. A letter to Planning in January 2009 under the headline “Process drives developers to eschew approvals route” reads:
	“The planning process has become so lengthy, complicated and bureaucratic that unscrupulous developers have found a more efficient, profitable and quicker method of obtaining permissions. They simply ignore the system.”
	But as they improve their systems, planning authorities must have the ability to deal properly with those unscrupulous developers.
	One argument which might be advanced against my Bill is that there are already sufficient sanctions available to planning authorities. It is true that they are able to order the demolition of the offending development and have been known to do so. But more often than not, demolition is considered to be a disproportionate penalty, and the result is that the illegal development is sanctioned in retrospect.
	Fines can also be levied. For instance, there is a maximum fine for the unauthorised display of an advertisement of £2,500. For unauthorised works, there are fines of up to £20,000 upon conviction in the magistrates court and an unlimited fine if convicted by the Crown court. But these cases rarely go to court and the fines are almost never imposed. Certainly, that has not happened in any of the cases which I have seen locally and believe merited such penalties.
	What is needed is an automatic sanction which falls short of demolition, unless that is clearly the answer, but which means that the developer not only gains no financial reward from their illegal activity, but incurs a penalty. I think of a recent case in my constituency in which homes were constructed of a size that was considerably larger than that for which permission had been given. I would have wished to see a fine imposed which was equivalent to the difference in value between the type of house actually built and that which had been permitted, with a penalty on top. Such a fine, which the developer would have known about in advance, would make it less likely that he would have gone ahead and flouted planning permission to the distress and disadvantage of several local residents.
	My Bill would particularly support places such as the City of Westminster, which contacted me over this issue. It has been a serious matter for that council, not least because of the high land values and the potential financial gains which can be made though breaches of consent. One specific example the council shared involved major international businesses displaying large scaffold advertising banners during London 2012 Olympics. This case was subject to enforcement and the deputy chief magistrate who heard the case stated in her summation that the scale of fines was not high enough and needed to be reviewed. This deliberate abuse of the planning system purely for financial gain resulted in a fine in one case of just £2,000—far less than the advantage gained.
	The City of Westminster also pointed out the impact of unauthorised short-term lets which skew the rental market and squeeze out genuine long-term renters. Ensuring that such breaches resulted in fines which removed any financial gain would encourage renters to follow the law.
	My Bill serves to strengthen the hand of local authorities in a proportionate manner to deter those who wish to use for their own gain the ineffectiveness of the current application of sanctions on unauthorised development. It is, I believe, a necessary part of a more efficient and fair planning system.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Jeremy Lefroy, Fiona Bruce, Gavin Williamson, Paul Farrelly, Andrea Leadsom, Mr Michael McCann, Steve Brine, Andrew Griffiths, Jim Shannon, Peter Luff, Mr Robin Walker and Mr Gary Streeter present the Bill.
	Jeremy Lefroy accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April and to be printed (Bill 166).

Jim McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Scottish questions earlier today, the Secretary of State agreed to group Questions 6 and 7. I am puzzled as to why my question, Question 12, which was exactly the same, was not also grouped. As you know, I stood up at the time to try to ask my question but was unsuccessful. That is not a complaint; I just wonder how questions are grouped and who decided how they are grouped.

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the question in the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that responsibility for the grouping or non-grouping of questions lies entirely with the Government. Ordinarily, the Government make a calculation of the likely point that will be reached in Question Time, based on previous experience, and judge accordingly whether or not they think it appropriate to group Questions. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am genuinely sorry if the hon. Gentleman was disappointed not to be able to participate in the exchanges on—if memory serves me correctly—the effect of the Budget upon Scotland, but I know that he is a dedicated and assiduous contributor to our proceedings and am sure that he will seek to catch the eye of the Chair in future. In the meantime, his dissatisfaction has been registered with the Chair, the House and the Government Whip sitting on the Treasury Bench.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Consideration of Lords message
	After Clause 9

Defence Fire and Rescue Service and Ministry of Defence Police Capability Review

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
	That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 78B but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
	I begin by thanking Opposition Members for their constructive engagement on the treatment of Ministry of Defence police and fire workers’ normal pension age under the Bill. Important issues were explored during our debate on Monday, when views were put forward passionately by Members on both sides of the House. The Government have acknowledged the strength of feeling. In the other place, my colleague Lord Newby has explained that the Government fully accept the spirit of the Lords amendment we are considering today.
	We are willing to include a review of defence fire and rescue service and MOD police members’ NPA in the Bill and formalise the approach that I announced we were intending to take. The review will ensure that the issue can be discussed formally by the appropriate parties to consider the best way forward. However, although the Government agree with the amendment, it requires some small changes to ensure that it works as intended. I urge hon. Members to agree to the tweaks put forward in our amendment.
	I will explain briefly why the wording of the Government’s amendment differs slightly from that proposed in the other place. First, we have made a small change to the nature of what must be reported on in order to make it more precise and legally certain. Secondly, the names of the work forces were incorrect. The reference to the “Defence Fire and Rescue Service” has been adjusted to make it consistent with the terms of other legislation that describes the same work force.
	Thirdly, the amendment passed to us from the other place seems to confer a double role on the Secretary of State for Defence, as he would be included by both references. My right hon. Friend is a very busy man. It cannot be right to require him both to prepare and to lay a report in conjunction with himself—that would defy the laws of physics. I assume that was unintentional, and it is easily rectified by Government amendment (a).
	Finally, and most importantly, it is unclear when the amendment is to come into force. The Opposition in the other place have called for the review to be completed within six months. I am keen to address the House on that point, because I believe that there has been some confusion about whether that means six months from the date of Royal Assent, or six months after section 9 comes into effect. The Opposition’s amendment would require a review within six months of the Act coming into force. However, the Act will be brought into force in stages and some sections might not be commenced for more than a year. We do not intend section 9 to be one of those stages.
	The Government’s amendment proposes that the review period should be six months from when clause 9, which relates to the state pension age link, comes into force. That provision alters the normal pension ages for those work forces, so that is where the focus should be. It is our intention that the clause should be commenced as early as possible. Standard Government rules require that provisions in a Bill are not commenced until two months after Royal Assent unless the Bill itself provides for earlier commencement, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) will be aware from his time in government.
	We should all remember that the key effect of the review is likely to be felt in 2015, which is when the new schemes are brought in, but the important point is that there will be no delay. The Government have every incentive to resolve the terms and conditions of the MOD police and the defence fire and rescue service as soon as possible, since they will be needed to design and implement the new scheme, which will cater for them in time for April 2015.

Bob Russell: The Minister will recall that on Monday I was very critical of the absence of the Ministry of Defence from the debate. Has there been any involvement with it in the past 48 hours?

Sajid Javid: Yes, absolutely. It is of course a full Government position; it represents the views of not only the Treasury, but the MOD. In fact, I discussed the matter only yesterday with the Secretary of State for Defence.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate the Minister on seeing sense and reaching an accommodation with the Lords on the amendment. Can he assure me that he will continue to work with the representatives of the MOD police and firefighters to ensure that the work force representations are brought into the process?

Sajid Javid: I am not used to getting warm words from the hon. Lady, and when I do I take them with good grace. I thank her for her warm welcome. I can assure her that when the MOD commences the review—it has already begun the preliminary work on it—it will include all stakeholders, and that of course includes the representatives of the two work forces in question.
	The clock is already ticking and a delay would make implementation of the schemes all the more challenging. Moreover, I should emphasise that the time scale is already much tighter than that which Members requested during our debate on Monday. My colleague Lord Newby stated yesterday that the Government would not kick the review into the long grass. I reiterate that statement today and fully endorse his comments. I give the House my assurance that the MOD and the Treasury will work to ensure not only that clause 9 and the new clause set out in our amendment are commenced as soon as possible, but that preliminary work on the review will start before the new clause is commenced. I hope that hon. Members will agree that rejecting the amendment passed to us for consideration from the Lords and replacing it with the Government’s slightly more refined version is the most sensible way forward.

Christopher Leslie: It is refreshing to have the Minister in this emollient frame of mind. His words suggest a tacit acknowledgment that he has been on the wrong side of the argument to date. I am pleased that the House of Lords continued to insist that the Government should think afresh on the issue. Clearly, there is an unfair disparity between Ministry of Defence and civilian firefighters and police, and every rule of natural justice suggested that that anomaly needed to be addressed.
	I make the point in passing that it was a little unwarranted for the Government to tell the Lords that it was not allowed to continue with its point of principle—this was one way of shutting it up—because of financial privilege. Nevertheless, I am glad at the ingenuity of the Lords in keeping the issue alive with their proposal for a review.
	The Government could not resist tinkering with that proposal. The Minister has explained why he made some of those changes, but I want to press him for a few reassurances. We welcome the proposal for a review, as broadly agreed by the Lords, but we now need—if you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—to keep the Government’s feet to the fire.
	The Government have to address the issue of the physical demands on individual personnel and whether it is reasonable to insist that they should keep working in arduous and dangerous conditions until they are 67. The review has to get the Government and Ministers finally to answer the question about how it can possibly be fair for one set of firefighters and police to work until they are 60 and for MOD staff to work until they are 67. The review should address whether the job description can realistically be fulfilled by those who continue to work into their late 60s.
	Ministers have changed the Lords amendment so that it no longer mentions the need for statements of requirements, which are official MOD documents and would address any concerns, especially among heads of forces. However, I think that the Government’s amendment sort of preserves the original meaning. The review should also reveal whether an insistence on staff working until they are 67 would have a perverse effect on the taxpayer, because it might cost more as a result of the numbers forced into early retirement on the grounds of sickness or illness.
	I have three principal questions on which I would like the Minister’s reassurance, although he has addressed them in part. First—the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) alluded to this—the Lords felt that it was important that Treasury Ministers and the Secretary of State for Defence should undertake the review jointly, that it should not be brushed off to one Department or the other, or to a third, independent reviewer, and that it should be the Government’s set of conclusions. Sometimes Treasury documents refer to a Secretary of State and sometimes they refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sensed from what the Minister said that both Departments would be involved in the review. Will he give that reassurance?
	Secondly, when will we get the review? The Minister said that it is not normal practice to refer to Royal Assent as the date that triggers the announcement of how many months it will take before reports and reviews will be produced. I am not sure whether I agree with him, but I will go with it on this occasion, given that he
	has spoken in the spirit of compromise today. The Minister said that the process would start as soon as possible. I got the impression that he was implicitly saying that it would take two months or similar to trigger clause 9 and then six months thereafter. He implied that we would get the review at the end of this calendar year, so it would be helpful if he could confirm that general time frame. He also responded to the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) by reassuring us that there will be ongoing consultation with employee representatives.
	Thirdly, a source of anxiety since our debate on Monday—the Minister has not touched on this—has been the question of the abatement of MOD firefighter and police pay as part of the necessary adjustment to ensure parity between the civilian and civil service pension schemes. Obviously, it would be unfair to deduct a sum from the pay of MOD firefighters and police at source—that seems to be the case historically—as well as to ask them to pay again when additional contributions begin under the new scheme. Will the Minister assure us that that discrepancy will be properly addressed in the review? The risk of a duplication of contributions would be unfair and there is some anxiety about this. The level of the abatement needs properly to reflect the relative value of benefits in the new scheme. This is a complex point, but it would help if the Minister could assure us that the abatement issue will be drawn to a conclusion.
	By accepting the need for a proper review, the Treasury has moved from its previous insistence that nothing could be done. Earlier this week the most we could get was a hint that it might consider sticking to 65 as the age of retirement. We will now see—by the end of this calendar year, I hope—whether the Government will honour their responsibilities to the 356 MOD firefighters and police.
	I am glad that we have extracted some concessions from Ministers and that the further review is on the table. I also commend David Kirby and MOD firefighters and police representatives for their unrelenting hard work in getting the Government to this position. The story is not over. We need to keep a watchful eye on things, particularly when the review is published. I want the Minister’s reassurance on each of the three points that I have raised, because they matter and it would be preferable if the House reached consensus.

Simon Hughes: I join in the thanks to the Minister and our noble friend Lord Newby for their work during all the stages of this end-of-term attempt at reconciliation, which has at last been achieved. I also thank colleagues on the Labour Benches and those on our Back Benches and on the Cross Benches in the Lords who made sure that the remaining issue in this huge Bill could be resolved amicably. The Lord’s proposal and the Minister’s amendment mean that this is not a closed book and I hope that this hugely important Bill to reform public sector pensions will be put on the statute book this week. There is now a fixed time frame in which to address further the anomaly that was not spotted by the previous Government or by Lord Hutton, but that has since been brought to our attention.
	I also join in the thanks to Mr Kirby and his colleagues for their efforts in making sure that we understood their concerns. Their request is not unfair. They are asking to be put in a position similar to those who do similar jobs—they are not identical jobs—in the civilian services. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made the obvious point about the logic of that position when he said earlier this week that the argument in favour of Ministry of Defence firefighters and police and rescue people retiring at 60, as is the case in the civilian services, is, bluntly, that they do dangerous jobs that require them to be particularly fit. The argument that they can be expected to do their job properly and protect themselves and others after they reach 60 has not been made. We are all in favour of more flexible ages of retirement. I buy the argument that the retirement age has to go up, both in general and in relation to public servants, and I support the Government’s proposals, but we have to accept that the time when people are not fit enough to do certain jobs will come earlier than others.
	I have a few questions. The Bill’s provisions will commence when it is enacted, but that does not apply to those in clause 9—the pension age provisions—which will be subject to an announcement by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister at a later date. That is a perfectly normal procedure. Will the Minister explain in his response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) when he expects that announcement to be made? That will be of wider interest, because it is a hugely important issue.
	Secondly, I ask the Minister to accept that some of the facts and figures that he has used, which I think have also been used by the Government in the other place, are not accepted as facts and may be misinformed. I am not accusing the Minister of doing that wilfully. For example, he has made the fairly strong argument that an 8% increase in contributions would be required from these firefighers, rescue workers and police to fund a pension age of 60. The workers say that it would be a very small figure of about 2%.
	That ties in to my third question. It is important that we take into account what this change would cost the Treasury and the taxpayer. The Government have in both Houses given the estimate of £10 million a year. The people who have come to see me have argued that the sum will be much smaller and may be in the order of £2 million a year. I do not pretend to be an expert on these issues, but I am sure that the Minister will say when he winds up that the Government will not go into this process with a closed view. It is a negotiation, so the arguments will be heard and I hope that the true facts will be accepted.
	It has been accepted already in the conversations with the Ministry of Defence that the pension age for fire and rescue workers and police in the services can be held at 65 and not rise in line with the provisions of the Bill, which take account of increasing life expectancy. I want to reinforce the point that the people who will be affected argue not that their pension age should held at 65, but that it should be 60, in line with similar civilian workers. If that age is later renegotiated across the piece for firefighters, rescue workers and police, that is fine. I
	think the Minister understands that, but I wanted to put it on the record that that is where the workers want to start from. That is a reasonable expectation.
	I am grateful to the Minister and am pleased that we have been able to carry out this bicameral activity again in a spirit of determined resolution, which I hope will mean that this important Bill becomes an Act on the statute book this week.

Bob Russell: I am delighted that the trust and confidence that I placed in the Minister on the public record on Monday has been justified. I thank him, those around him and those in the other place for bringing matters to a resolution that, although a compromise, is one that I hope we can all live with. In that spirit of concord, I thank Opposition Front Benchers for their contribution. We should praise the representatives of the Ministry of Defence police and fire and rescue service, because without their sterling endeavours, we might have ended up with a right mess.
	I remain critical of the Ministry of Defence, because if it had been involved at an earlier stage, we would not have got to the stage where a resolution was needed. I am still concerned that we are looking at this matter the wrong way around. It is the fitness of the people to do these very dangerous jobs that should be paramount, not the retirement age or the pension. They defend and provide security and fire services for nuclear installations. I urge the Ministry of Defence, notwithstanding the resolution of this particular matter, to look calmly at the security and fire protection that its police and fire and rescue services provide in the national interest to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Nobody doubts the courage and commitment of the individuals concerned. However, as I said on Monday, do we really want our nuclear installations to be looked after by people of my age?

Alan Reid: I am pleased that the Government have agreed to make this amendment. My constituents who work as police officers and firefighters at Faslane and Coulport will be pleased that the Government have listened to their case and tabled this amendment.
	The report will look at the impact of the Bill on the health and well-being of defence police and firefighters, and at the ability of those over 60 to meet the strict fitness requirements that are necessary for the important and dangerous job that they do. The report will also consider the consequences of early retirement for the workers who are forced to retire early on health grounds because they cannot meet the stringent fitness requirements in their 60s, as well as the cost to the taxpayer.
	The Government inherited this anomaly and it was missed by Lord Hutton in preparing his report. The Government have been faithful to the Hutton report in the Bill. I am pleased that they have listened to the concerns of defence police and firefighters, and have agreed to table this amendment.
	After Monday’s debate, defence police and firefighters in my constituency expressed concerns to me about the size of the abatement of their pay that it was suggested might be necessary to reduce their retirement age to 60. I hope that all the calculations on the abatement of pay will be transparent in the report. Calculating pension contributions is an enormously complex process. Following
	a review by the Government Actuary’s Department, the abatement on pay rates for MOD firefighters has been reduced retrospectively from 9% to 7.8% from 1 April last year. The fact that that calculation has been made only recently and has been backdated is an indication of how complicated a subject this is. It is important that during the review, all the calculations are transparent and independently verified, and that the workers are allowed to ask questions about them.
	I am delighted that the Government have listened and brought forward the review. I am fairly confident that the review will find that it is not good for the workers or for the taxpayer for people doing these strenuous and dangerous jobs to work beyond 60. The calculations will show that if the retirement age is 65 or 68 and significant numbers of people are forced to retire early on health grounds, both the taxpayer and the worker will lose out. The worker will lose out because they will not get the full pension that they had expected. The taxpayer will lose out because the amount that has been paid into the pension pot will not cover the cost of the pension if it is paid out early.
	It would not be right for these workers to work beyond 60. The right comparison is with civilian firefighters and police who work for local authority fire services or other police forces. I am fairly confident that the review will recommend a retirement age of 60. I congratulate the Government on listening to the legitimate concerns that have been put forward.

Sajid Javid: I thank all hon. Members who spoke in the debate on Monday and who have spoken to me outside the Chamber. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) who have spoken today. I also want to put it on the record that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) has made representations on behalf of his constituents on this important issue. He has been robust in representing them, even though as a member of the Whips Office he is not able to speak on their behalf in the Chamber, and that is reflected in the Government’s amendment.
	As I said on Monday, and as we have heard again today, the whole House believes that the work forces we are talking about today—defence fire workers and police—do excellent, vital and sometimes dangerous work, and we all hold them in high regard. I am sure I speak on behalf of the House and all our constituents in saying that.
	I will go through the questions that have been asked, starting with those from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). First, he understandably asked for
	reassurance that the review would include consideration of the physical demands placed on Ministry of Defence fire workers and police officers. Of course, that is exactly what I expect. To give him further reassurance, I point out that proposed subsection (2)(b) in the Government’s amendment in lieu makes that clear. It clearly states that the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the work forces in question can meet their operational requirements. That is an important part of the review.
	The hon. Gentleman also wanted reassurance that the review would not just be an MOD review. Of course, the MOD will carry out the review, but I can assure him that it will do so with the full support of the Treasury and on behalf of the Government. That is the important thing.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked an important question about timing. Perhaps I can add some more clarity. As I said earlier, the Government intend that the review, which will take no longer than six months, will commence when the provision in clause 9 related to the pension age is itself commenced. We plan that to be within two months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am willing to go further, because this is an important issue and I know that many fire workers and police officers from the MOD will be listening. I am happy to say that we not only intend but fully expect that to be the time scale. I am therefore happy to commit to the House that I fully expect the review to be over within eight months of Royal Assent.
	I agree that abatement, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised, is an important issue. It is therefore important that the MOD review considers it. It will have to consider a broad range of issues affecting the workers in question, including all pay and remuneration conditions and other potential benefits. It will have to examine the matter in its totality, and I would expect nothing else.
	If I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he was also looking for reassurance that contrary to the letter that the MOD wrote to forces personnel about the review considering only a retirement age of 65, which we discussed on Monday, there is no such restriction. The review will be much broader-based, and the MOD will make comparisons with civilian fire workers and police officers. No restriction at all is being put in its way.
	I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ questions, and that they will see that the Government have considered the matter carefully and value the work forces in question. I urge the House to accept the amendment in lieu.
	Question put and agreed to.

Defamation Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 1
	 — 
	Serious harm

Helen Grant: I beg to move,
	That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu of Lords amendment 2, to which this House has disagreed.
	The reasons that this House gave for disagreeing to certain amendments to the Bill have been considered in the other place, and a further amendment has been agreed there that now requires consideration by this House. I ask the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B.
	The Lords amendment is to clause 1 and makes clear that a body that trades for profit will satisfy the serious harm test only if it is able to show that the statement complained of has caused that body, or is likely to cause it, serious financial loss. As I made clear when we originally considered Lords amendments, we recognise the strength of feeling that exists on whether there should be a specific provision in the Bill on the issue. I indicated that I would consider the matter further, and the amendment reflects the outcome of those considerations.
	As the Government explained at earlier stages of the Bill’s passage, we amended what was initially a “substantial harm” requirement to one of “serious harm” to raise the bar for bringing defamation claims. The Lords amendment therefore refers to “serious financial loss”, to reflect that aim, and is now linked explicitly with the serious harm test.
	We consider that the approach that we have taken is clearly preferable to that in the earlier Lords amendment 2 for two main reasons. First, the use of the words “serious financial loss” makes it absolutely clear that the financial loss required to meet the serious harm test must itself be serious. By contrast, the reference in the earlier amendment to “substantial financial loss” could inadvertently have weakened the requirements of what must be shown to satisfy the test.

Edward Garnier: Why does my hon. Friend say that? What is the difference between “serious” and “substantial”?

Helen Grant: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will go into details about the motion that he tabled, but as we have made clear, we think it is helpful that there will be a direct link between serious harm and serious financial loss. That will make the situation absolutely clear to those wishing to bring an action.
	The second reason why Lords amendment 2B is preferable to the earlier Lords amendment 2 is that the term that we have used to define those who will be subject to the requirement—
	“a body that trades for profit”—
	is a much clearer and simpler definition. Those are the bodies about which people have expressed concern, so we have phrased the amendment specifically and directly to meet those concerns.
	I believe that the Lords amendment represents an effective and proportionate approach that addresses the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere. I urge the House to support it.

Robert Flello: Thanks to a lot of hard work—especially in the other place, it has to be said—the Bill is now in a much better place. It is still far from perfect, sadly, which is a huge shame. It could have been perfect and a marvel to behold, but sadly the to-do list in the Bill includes early strike-out, website operator regulations and clarification for booksellers of the innocent dissemination rules, about which they were concerned. It also includes costs, which are a strange case, because we are really no further forward on them.
	Indeed, we are left in a wholly unsatisfactory place. The last-minute announcement of a consultation on costs over the summer shows how sloppily this Government have treated parts of the Defamation Bill. The mess in respect of defamation, Leveson and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means in future people in a similar position to the Dowlers, Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst who will fight defamation cases will probably be in a worse position on costs than they would have been had the Government not got their hands on this legislation. Despite the promises that were made during the passage of the LASPO Act, costs is a major issue, and it should have been dealt with properly before this Bill returned to the Chamber.
	The Minister commented on extending the Derbyshire principle to private companies. It is estimated that, following this Government’s privatisation agenda, in the NHS alone private companies will take over £16 billion- worth of Government contracts to provide services previously carried out by the public sector. Those services will go to private companies that use the law to chill debate in a way that the NHS cannot. Atos frequently suppresses disquiet, and Baroness Hayter cited Serco in the other place yesterday.
	I hope the judiciary is listening to this debate and has listened to some of the other debates, because as Ministers both in this House and the other place have repeatedly said, the courts should further develop the Derbyshire principle in line with the will of Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position, however, and this is on the to-do list of things that would have improved the Bill dramatically, but I hope the courts will now extend Derbyshire to contracts between the private sector and the Government or local authorities, because that is in line with the will of this House. [Interruption.] The Minister has commented on that, as I have said.
	It is thanks to Opposition Members that the Bill has been improved. No matter what is claimed on the Liberal Democrat Voice website, not once have the Lib Dems backed us against the Government. Indeed, yesterday in the other place in the vote on the Derbyshire aspect of what was amendment 2—[Interruption.] The Minister keeps chuntering about Derbyshire, but the issue here is clearly that the will of this House has been expressed on many occasions, but thanks to the Liberal Democrats supporting the Government, we are not able to take that forward. It is important to put that on the record. No matter what they say, it is all talk and no action from the Liberal Democrats.
	This is now a better Bill, but it is not the best it could be, and we will need to return to it after Labour is re-elected to government in 2015—or sooner, I hope. It is the best we can expect at present, however, and that is a shame. I am disappointed—and also surprised, although perhaps I should not be—that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has introduced his proposal. We will hear his observations on this matter in a few moments. We will decide whether what is before us is the best we can get today after we have heard the Minister’s final comments.

Edward Garnier: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) because I do not think my motion has been selected. None the less, I am not prevented from—and nor shall I be inhibited from—saying a few things about where we are now. There are plenty of aspects of the Defamation Bill—which has been chuntering away in the background in this House and the other place for a few years now—that are commendable, and other aspects that are utterly harmless; they will not do any good, but neither will they do any harm. I am disappointed as well, however—although I suppose that might partly be to do with my having been first elected to this House 21 years ago and having been here too long—that the coalition Government have allowed themselves to create the law of England through a series of backdoor deals, rather than through any rational and coherent thought.
	I think the hon. Gentleman largely agrees with me about where we are now with this Bill, as, I suspect, does my hon. Friend the Minister, but she is in a difficult place and I sympathise with her about that. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Justice is not here to defend where we are now and to speak up for the Bill for which he has responsibility on behalf of the Government.
	Last week my hon. Friend and I were in agreement; this week we are not. Last week the Government whipped coalition Members to support what I and my hon. Friend were advocating—that it is not in the public interest to have a financial damage hurdle for companies to overcome that want to bring proceedings in libel. This week, the Government have changed their mind—or have had their mind changed for them. I am all for people changing their mind if the circumstances or evidence supports that. What I find intolerable—and what I think amounts to a form of incoherence and political feebleness, and which is little short of intellectual dishonesty—is for a Government to march their troops up the hill one week and then to rush down the hill the next week saying, “We didn’t really mean it last week,” or “We had not really thought about it,” or “We are doing this for no other reason than that we are under political pressure from A, B or C, and we have decided to ask our Government troops to do something else.”
	I do not think that is a proper way to create the law of England. If we want to adjust the law of defamation we can, of course, do so; Parliament is sovereign and it can do that as and when it sees fit to do so. On the whole, however, Parliament and this Government will be better respected if they do so on the basis of having thought about the matter and having relied on the evidence that supports their case, as opposed to running harum-scarum
	all over the place and looking confused. I think we are in a confused position. Sadly, nothing that I heard from my hon. Friend this afternoon, or from the Minister in the other place, Lord McNally, when he spoke to the Government position, has filled me with any confidence that this is anything other than a backstairs deal. If the Government admit this is a backstairs deal, so we can clear that up, that will be good, but I have a suspicion it is being dressed up as a matter of principle when there is no principle other than the shenanigans of coalition politics.
	As is clear from my unselected motion, I have an interest to declare. I declared it last week, and I shall probably go to my grave with R in square brackets printed on my forehead, but if a Member of Parliament happens to know a bit about something, such as an area of law, it is a pity if he or she feels he or she cannot say something about that subject when a Bill touching upon it comes to be considered.
	Clause 1 currently states:
	“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant,”
	It is now being proposed that these words be added to it:
	“For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not ‘serious harm’ unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.”
	Those words are perfectly understandable; they are ordinary English words and my hon. Friend and I can well understand what they say. What I find troublesome, however, is that last week she did not approve of them being inserted into the Bill, but this week she does. As I have said, this smells of a pretty low-grade backstairs deal.
	Last week, I made some arguments that the House accepted, and it therefore rejected an amendment whose terms are broadly similar to the one the Government are now pushing upon us, so I will not repeat what I said in the House last week, and nor will I repeat what my noble Friend Lord Faulks said in the other place—although I urge those in this House and elsewhere who are interested in this subject to look at what he said. He made a short and considered speech; it was a shorter speech than the one I am making. In it, he unpicked in a gently generous way my noble Friend Lord McNally’s arguments—I should, perhaps, put that word in inverted commas.
	It strikes me—and I think it struck my noble Friend yesterday—that the additional requirement of special damage, which the Government’s amendment proposes, is unnecessary because of the serious harm test that will already exist in clause 1. The clause will simply have the effect of ensuring that libel claims brought by corporations generate satellite litigation and become more costly. Special damages claims are expensive to try, more complicated and far less easy to settle. Those who chose to defend libel claims brought by corporations, but who ultimately fail, will have an even bigger bill to pay.
	The clause as amended—if the Government have their way—will not achieve its aims because usually the more damaging a libel, the more likely a corporation is to try to silence its critics. There are remarkably few cases of the kind that are cited as examples of bullying, which keep being repeated and repeated—Wilmshurst
	and GE Healthcare are two cases that are cited. I know from my experience and listening to others who know a little bit about this area of law, that the number of cases involving corporate plaintiffs is remarkably few.

Robert Flello: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept, however, that what we hear time and time again is that cases do not get to court because of the bullying by corporations at an early stage? People give in straight away or, more often—as in the Serco case, which I think Baroness Hayter raised yesterday in the other place—newspapers face the difficult decision of whether to pursue something that might end up being challenged, even if they are citing the truth.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman no doubt makes a correct factual point, but I think he exaggerates it. The number of cases involving corporate claimants is small and the damages they recover, absent special damages, is low. Damages to trading reputation alone probably attract £20,000 at the top end and usually no more than £10,000, so we are not talking about hugely extravagant damages claims.
	Allegations of bullying can be made against anybody who has more money than the person they are suing. Jimmy Goldsmith, now long dead, sued about 100 distributors—I was involved in the case in a junior capacity—such as WH Smith, Menzies and so forth. He issued proceedings in his dispute with “Private Eye”. It was suggested by those defendants that he was doing it to shut them down—to prevent them from distributing a newspaper.

Helen Goodman: He was!

Edward Garnier: The Court of Appeal disagreed with that and said—the case is called Sperrings, if the hon. Lady is interested—that there was no basis for suggesting that Jimmy Goldsmith was misconducting himself, albeit that a reasonable person could comment that he was using his financial wealth to bully those defendants. The same could be said of Robert Maxwell, who stole Daily Mirror employees’ money in order to run libel actions against every Tom, Dick and Harry he could lay his fingers on.
	What is the difference between complaints about financial wealth or strength in the hands of individuals being used to bully defendants, compared with financial wealth in the hands of corporate claimants being used to do that? If the case is an abuse—if it does not come within the terms of the currently unamended clause 1—the court will stop it. However, what has happened is that a general case has been built up, but on the basis of about two, three or four cases—I congratulate the campaigners and those who have seduced my hon. Friend and the Opposition into believing that what they are doing is in the public interest. That is illogical, although it has been highly effective politically—you can perhaps hear from the frustration in my voice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I recognise defeat when I see it. I am about to be defeated, because the Government have simply whipped the people who voted one way last week to vote another way this week.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Edward Garnier: Although my hon. Friend was not here at the beginning of the debate, I will, if I may, permit him to intervene.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, but as soon as I saw that he was on his feet, I came as fast as I could, dropping everything else. Last week I voted the way I intend to vote this week.

Edward Garnier: At least you’re consistent.

Peter Bottomley: And I still think I am right. Can my hon. and learned Friend give some examples of where corporations have taken defamation or libel cases that were necessary and could not have been dealt with in another way? As he says, the problem with illustrative cases is that they do not always make good law, but the cases involving Dr Peter Wilmshurst and Simon Singh were examples of how the law did not bring justice within a time scale and for an amount of money that ordinary people or publishers can afford.

Edward Garnier: Obviously I cannot give my hon. Friend a catalogue of cases one way or the other. What I can tell him is that if clause 1 is amended as he always wanted and as the Government now want, the case of Wilmshurst, in which he was sued by NMT Medical, would probably pass the “serious financial loss” hurdle. If my hon. Friend thinks that he is helping Dr Wilmshurst or those like him by amending the Bill in that way, I am afraid he is wrong. If he wants to lock future Dr Wilmshursts into satellite litigation about “serious financial loss”, then make my day, as they say. That will be the unintended consequence of what is going happen.
	As I said last week and as was said in the other place yesterday, the great and sadly late Lord Bingham said in the case of Jameel that corporations have trading reputations that ought to be worthy of protection. A corporation’s trading reputation is a thing of value. However, the Government and those who support them on this particular volte face confuse themselves because they have separated out—no doubt for well intentioned reasons—non-trading companies and trading companies for the purposes of the amendment to clause 1. However, trading companies have different types of reputation, as Mr Justice Tugendhat said in the case of Thornton last year. Individuals—and certainly companies—have different segments of their reputation that are susceptible to being defamed.
	I used the example of the BBC last night on “The World Tonight”, at about quarter past 10. The BBC is a large trading corporation. It sells things for profit—programmes—but it has another reputation as a source of unbiased and disinterested news reporting. It has another reputation as a supporter of good causes such as Children in Need and another reputation as an employer. I could libel the BBC in its trading capacity and it might or might not overcome the hurdle that clause 1, as about to be amended, would present. However, I could also accuse it of being, let us say, a hotbed of or a magnet for child sex abusers. That would not necessarily cause it serious financial loss, but it would most certainly defame the BBC and undermine its reputation as a place to be employed or a place to go and visit. Despite the fact that that would cause it serious reputational
	loss, the BBC would be unable to vindicate its reputation, because it would be unable to show serious financial loss.
	It strikes me that as I begin to repeat myself and say what I said last week—

Peter Bottomley: That’s age.

Edward Garnier: My hon. and very elderly Friend says, “That’s age.” Well, he has more experience of—

Hon. Members: Ooh!

Peter Bottomley: It is true.

Edward Garnier: It is true, it is justifiable and I do not even have to—

Peter Bottomley: It is privileged, too.

Edward Garnier: It is all sorts of things and it will not cause my hon. Friend financial loss, but he will still be able to sue me if I repeat it outside—assuming that accusing somebody of my hon. Friend’s distinction of being elderly were defamatory. But anyhow, I digress—I am amused to be digressed by my hon. Friend, because he is an amusing and diverting person.
	I will not call a Division this afternoon, because I can do a bit of arithmetic and also because by not calling a vote I will create more embarrassment for the Government. I urge them to think carefully about what they think they are doing, why they have done it, and whether they can justify what they have done. Are they able to answer accusations of backstairs deals, and allegations of incoherence or producing a measure that will have huge and unintended consequences of deleterious effect?
	The Government are making the law of England in a wholly non-party political area. This is a technical issue about the proper regulation of libel law. If they wish to go on and make a fool of themselves, fair enough. I cannot stop them. I do not have the votes behind me, albeit that exactly the same Members of Parliament were behind me last week, one of whom was my hon. Friend—not my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, but the Minister on the Front Bench. If the Government wish to go ahead—fair enough, I cannot stop them. However, I regret today’s state of affairs which I think is unwise, and the Government are being very silly. I congratulate those who have supported this campaign on pulling this particular rabbit out of the hat at this late stage, but in the end they will no doubt have little to congratulate themselves on, and the courts will be full of satellite litigation about the definition of “serious financial loss.”
	When I asked the Minister about the difference between serious financial loss and substantial financial loss or harm, she said simply that I would be able to answer that question better myself. If that is what she said—

Helen Grant: indicated dissent.

Edward Garnier: She is shaking her head to say she did not, but I am not sure that is an answer to the question. The Government should come to the Dispatch Box and have a coherent case to make, but they do not.
	Old and ill-tempered Members of Parliament, whether they represent Worthing or Harborough, must draw their remarks to a conclusion at some stage so I shall do that now. I do so, however, with acute disappointment, and I think the Government are letting themselves down.

Simon Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) is clearly experienced in these matters, but he is not satisfied by the conclusion reached by the two Houses after a huge amount of consideration over a very long period, with attempts by everybody to achieve maximum consensus. I understand his point that Parliament works by doing a deal at the end of the day. A Government—any Government—have to get a Bill through both Houses of Parliament, and for a long time no single party has had a majority in the House of Lords. The House of Lords has often intervened to say that it does not like what the House of Commons is doing, and there have been one, two or three attempts at the end of the Session to see whether we can reach a point of conciliation. That is what has happened in this case.
	My hon. and learned Friend and I might agree that we ought to have a system that always gives the final vote on Third Reading of a Bill to the elected House at the end of discussions. I hope I can persuade colleagues on the Procedure Committee to eventually come forward with such proposals, but that is for another day.

Edward Garnier: I do not suggest that what is being done today is unconstitutional; I say simply that it is incoherent and foolish.

Simon Hughes: I understood that and I will say why I think the measure is a reasonable last change that the House should support. I wish to pay tribute to several people, including Lord Lester of Herne Hill who introduced a private Member’s Bill to Parliament some years ago and in many ways triggered this reform of our defamation legislation. I also pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord McNally, who has steered a controversial Bill through many stages. He referred in his speech yesterday to the fact that it has been through the pre-legislative stage and the legislative stage. It has been considered by the Liberal Democrat party; there were conference debates and resolutions were passed on it, and there have also been many cross-party conversations.
	I was a little troubled that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was slightly churlish about the point we have reached. His party and mine, as well as the Conservatives and Cross Benchers, have worked together on the threshold for dealing with corporate claims, and we have made progress on that. Therefore, today is progress along the lines that he wanted, and that he knows colleagues from all three parties wanted. He pretends to be naïve—which he is not—about the way these things work, whether or not there is a coalition Government. At the end of a political process in Parliament, negotiations take place in the public light and also behind the scenes. As he knows perfectly well, that has happened with all three parties to try to get to the most agreeable and consensual place. My party has been as much a part of that process as the Labour party and the Conservatives in arriving at this point.
	The Minister rightly says that this is not about what is known as the Derbyshire principle. For those outside the House who have no clue what that is, in essence—I do not pretend to be legalistic about this—it is a principle enunciated by the courts in a case to do with a local authority, which effectively stated that local authorities cannot generally sue to protect their reputation because they are public authorities. However, as I think everybody has agreed in both Houses, common law will evolve, which does not stop it being dealt with by further judgments of the courts across the United Kingdom. In light of the Localism Act 2011, there may be further definitions of a public authority that seek to deal with the issue of a private body that does public authority work. That business remains unaltered by the Lords amendment.
	The Lords amendment, which has returned to this House in a form I hope will be accepted, would provide one additional hurdle for people who are seeking as companies to use this country’s defamation legislation. It states:
	“For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit—”
	therefore not a body that makes no profit—
	“is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.”
	I heard the previous speech and we can debate whether that is the perfect wording. It is, however, a clear statement that there must be “serious financial loss” before someone gets to a position from which they can win a defamation case. The Government rejected the idea of a pre-hearing. I understand that and think they were right because it would have meant going round the courts twice.
	The Government have accepted that the bar for companies should be higher than that for individuals, which I am sure is right. That measure is meant to deal with the sort of cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) alluded to where in the past individuals were clobbered by companies with huge resources and assets in a way regarded as totally unfair. As Lord McNally pointed out yesterday in the House of Lords, not only have we now, I hope, protected the little person in financial terms against the big corporate giant, we have also done things to protect academic reputations and academic dispute, and to allow that to go on without the threat of defamation. We have also, I hope, made the law clearer and brought it up to date.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said that if the Labour party returns to government, it may wish to return to these matters, and I suppose any Government may want to do that. In this country, however, we understandably do not reform defamation law—generally a cross-party exercise—very frequently. This is a major piece of legislation and I hope that we have dealt with the last tricky issue in a way that provides greater protection for the individual against the big corporate. I think that is a job well done in both Houses of this Parliament.

Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) for introducing my interest. I
	should declare that I have been successful in three major defamation actions, and I hope I shall not have to take another.
	I want to tell the story of Richard Doll, who drank too much college beer when applying to study mathematics at Trinity college, Cambridge. He did not get chosen, so he went to St Thomas’ instead. He had an interest in asthma and lung diseases. In 1950, he did a quick study on whether motor fumes or tarmac caused lung cancer, as was suspected at the time. He and his colleague, Bradford Hill, discovered that the common factor was smoking. They did not show until 1955 beyond any doubt what had first been suspected by German scientists in the 1930s, namely that, if a person smokes 25 cigarettes a day, their chances of developing lung cancer or associated serious illnesses increased by 25 or 50 times—I forget the actual figure.
	If the too-frequent current habit of commercial companies suing for damage had been prevalent when Richard Doll published his material, I suspect that the tobacco companies would have shut him down. When he later came out with the proposed link, which was proved, between asbestos and serious lung conditions, the same thing might have happened. One vital question is how we protect scientific speculation and the publishing of preliminary findings without the risk of action.
	I believe we should accept the Lords amendments in lieu because they give conditions in which court authority is necessary if the action is to start. There is one condition by which the court “must” rule action out. I hope the courts realise that they “may” disqualify such action on other grounds. There is a “must”, but the measure leaves open the “may” option for disqualifying cases.

Edward Garnier: Beyond clause 1—the serious harm test—we have clause 6, on peer-reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals. Clause 6 comes to the aid of scientists or medical experts such as Professor Doll if they make statements of that nature that are published in a peer-reviewed magazine or whatever, but there are plenty of other ways in which they could be assisted, such as through the common law, other measures in the Bill and earlier Defamation Acts.

Peter Bottomley: Indeed—that is why my hon. and learned Friend’s career will not be interrupted by the passage of the Bill. Plenty of people will seek his advice. The condition in the proposed new clause in lieu states:
	“(2) The permission of the court must be obtained in order to bring an action…(3) The court must strike out an application under subsection (2) unless”
	it can show X, Y and Z. My point is that the courts also have a “may” power, which I hope they use.
	The Trafigura event, which involved super-injunctions, was another example of people trying to shut down public knowledge, inquiry, discussion and debate.

Edward Garnier: That was a matter of confidence, not libel.

Peter Bottomley: I am aware of that—my hon. and learned Friend is guiding me into making my speech longer than I had intended.
	When I was appointed to the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill, I had hoped that the Government and their Law Officers would introduce positive proposals that went further than the Bill and that gave more power to people to speculate in public, defend their arguments and themselves. Defamation provides limits in that context.
	When I had to take defamation action, I did so as a private individual. What was said about me made such action necessary—I was labelled, in effect, as a paedophile on the front page of a major Sunday paper. It struck me that it was not true, not privileged and damaging, and therefore that it provided justification for action. Auberon Waugh made a living for four years out of calling me all sorts of things under the sun. One journalist said, “Why don’t you sue him?” I said, “First, I don’t mind; secondly, it might be true; and, thirdly, it is not compulsory to sue.” It would be fair if those who take defamation action justified why they were taking it, so that they do not just pile up costs, which can become too great.
	I should return to my earlier point. What comes before peer review? Suppose I am a scientist or someone else who suspects that there is a link between a commercial product and a bad consequence. I should not have to keep absolutely silent about it until I have managed to do a research study, which would involve getting the funding for the research study, finishing it, delivering it to the magazine so it can send it to other publications, and getting permission to make it public. Speculation requires people having the ability to speak more openly, but perhaps not always with certainty—they may have to put their views in terms of speculation rather than of direct accusations.
	We have had the recent case—it is now finished—of the fraud related to the device that was supposed to detect improvised explosives. If someone had spoken up against that company long before there was evidence for the court case, would they have faced a defamation action? We should remember that many magazines and newspapers do not have a great deal of money.
	If we accept the Lords amendment and pass the Bill, we will have done good, but not enough. I therefore make a plea to the Minister—she does not need to answer this point today—to work out how the relevant Departments can, either by themselves or by proxy, monitor defamation actions. They should have studies that report on the kinds of actions that are being taken, the writs that are being issued, the writs that are served having been issued, and the results—whether there is a settlement or whatever.
	My last question—having not given notice to the Minister, I do not necessarily expect an answer now—is this. If tomorrow, for the first time, Paul Dacre printed on the front page of the Daily Mail the names of those who are thought to have murdered Stephen Lawrence, would either the new press code or the Bill allow those accused to take action? Could they say that such a publication was improper? It was certainly unusual and rare when it happened, but I reckon it was in the public interest. That is the kind of permission or liberty that our media ought to be able to take, and I am glad Paul Dacre did so on that occasion.
	Question put and agreed.

Opposition Day

[Unallotted Half Day]

Agricultural Wages Board

Mary Creagh: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) was set up in 1948 to provide a fair wage and skills structure for agricultural workers; recognises that it is used as a benchmark for other employment in the food industry and that it was the only wages council not to be scrapped in the 1980s; further notes that around a quarter of agricultural workers live in tied accommodation and that casual seasonal workers may move around the country; regrets that the Welsh Government’s wish to retain the AWB has been ignored by the Government; condemns the Government for its abolition of the AWB, which took place after just four weeks consultation and will take £260 million out of the rural economy over the next 10 years, lead to a race to the bottom on wages in rural areas, reduce living standards and impoverish rural workers, exacerbating social deprivation and harming social inclusion; further regrets that hon. Members could not debate that issue as part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill; and calls on the Government to drop its plans to abolish the AWB.
	Last week, the House abolished the Agricultural Wages Board without debate and without a vote. The AWB sets the pay and conditions for 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales. That shoddy little manoeuvre was the result of Government desperation to force through the board’s abolition in the teeth of opposition from my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, workers’ representatives and many farmers. Perhaps it was also the result of a fear of another coalition split or Back-Bench revolt. Today, the Opposition are allowing Back Benchers the chance to debate and vote on that abolition—a vote the Government denied them last week.
	Like today’s debate, other debates on the subject have been sparsely attended by Government Back Benchers. Perhaps they flinch from defending an ideological decision that will impoverish hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of their hard-working constituents who work the land. We know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs traps squirrels on his estate. His Liberal Democrats colleagues should beware the political traps that he enjoys setting for his coalition partners. In opposition, the Minister of State supported a motion that warned that abolishing the AWB would
	“impoverish the rural working class”.
	Today, he and his colleagues once again act as midwives to Tory dogma that will make thousands of people in their constituencies worse off—1,020 people in the Minister’s constituency and 1,120 people in the Secretary of State’s constituency.
	The abolition of the AWB is wrong on three counts. First, it will take money out of workers’ pockets and out of rural high streets at a time when the economy needs it most. The abolition does nothing to reduce the deficit; it could even increase the deficit by adding to the welfare bill, because workers pushed into poverty pay will claim more in-work benefits and lose the incentive to gain new skills. Secondly, the abolition is bad for our food industry. A race to the bottom on pay will not help to attract the new recruits the industry needs. Thirdly, the abolition is bad regulatory reform because,
	paradoxically, it will increase the burden of employment regulation on small farmers, meaning that many more of them could end up in employment tribunals. Ministers’ incompetence will result in lower pay, higher welfare spending and more regulation, and it will deepen the recession in the rural high streets they represent.
	First, let us look at how the measure will take money off low-paid workers. The AWB protects pay and conditions for 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales.

Andy Sawford: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that among those working on the land are people like me and many others in Northamptonshire whose first experience of work, under the age of 16, was picking fruit on the farms in rural Northamptonshire? This will have a particular impact on them because they are not covered by the minimum wage.

Mary Creagh: Absolutely. With the abolition of the AWB, there will be no minimum wage for children under the age of 16 who are picking fruit or driving tractors at weekends and in the summer holidays. When one thinks about the amount of money a tractor is worth, and how such work could become a route into farming for some young people, it will certainly cap their access to that employment.
	As well as the 152,000 who are directly covered by the board, a similar number have their wages set against the AWB benchmark, including equestrian workers in the racing and leisure industries, estate workers and gamekeepers. Nearly every constituency in the country has some people who will be affected, including more than 50 people in Wakefield. The board sets fair wages, holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. It has six grades, and the lowest grade is just 2p an hour more than the national minimum wage.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another pernicious, shoddy little policy by the Government, who are ideologically driven to cut the wages of ordinary working people?

Mary Creagh: They are certainly driven by ideology, although the ideology of the Minister of State seems to have changed from when he was a Back Bencher, now that he enjoys the privilege of a Government car. I do not know what has changed for him.
	Without the AWB, farm workers will be worse off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said, there will be no minimum wage for children under 16. Seasonal workers will lose their entitlement to their own bed, which is currently guaranteed by the board. The cap on the amount employers can charge workers for tied accommodation, currently £4.82 a day for a caravan, will be removed. Some 42,000 casual workers will see their pay cut to the minimum wage as soon as they finish their current job. The rest will see their wages eroded over time.

James Paice: What evidence does the hon. Lady have for her statement that all those casual workers will see their pay cut immediately at the end of their contracts? Farmers are desperate to get casual workers, and that is why they
	are keen for us to continue the schemes to bring them in from eastern Europe. They will not be able to get the staff if, as she suggests, they cut their pay.

Mary Creagh: I will be talking in detail about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that 1,610 people in his constituency will be affected by the reduction in pay. I do not know whether he has read the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs impact assessment that was conducted when he was the Minister; I certainly have. It states that 42,000 casual workers are likely to see their pay default to the national minimum wage when their current employment comes to an end. The cost to the rural economy that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment estimates—there are varying figures—are to do with the direct loss of wages, holiday pay and sick pay out of workers’ pockets.

Mark Spencer: Will the hon. Lady identify what is special about agriculture? Is it that farmers want to exploit their workers, or should there be protection for people in retail, catering and other such industries?

Mary Creagh: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with 380 workers who will be affected in his constituency, is asking me what is special about agriculture; I believe that he is a farmer, so he might stand up and tell me. Agriculture is different because people are often living in rural isolation; they may have their home provided by their employer, which puts them in a uniquely vulnerable position; and, as the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said, they are brought in from countries where English is not their first language—perhaps they do not speak English at all—and are not in a position to negotiate. Those are three reasons for starters, but I am happy to come back to that.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend’s speech is hitting exactly the right notes. Has the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), not just given the game away? This measure is about getting eastern Europeans into the country to pay them poverty wages far below those that anybody else would possibly want.

Mary Creagh: I will look at that in detail later, but we do not want either a race to the bottom on wages or a great increase in the amount that employers charge workers for their tied accommodation—their hot bed in a caravan—which will mean that they end up effectively working for below national minimum wage and undercut British workers out of the market.

Tom Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. One point covered by the AWB that scares me is workers’ sick pay and terms and conditions. At the moment, sick pay ranges from £150 to £250. Once the AWB has gone, employers will have to pay sick pay at only statutory minimum terms of just more than £85. That is a direct hit on workers, a quarter of whom are over 55 years old.

Mary Creagh: That is right, and we all know that as we get older we are more prone to illness. A further reason why farming is different is that people are expected to work antisocial hours and long hours out in what can be very difficult conditions. We saw that with the flooding
	last year and when farmers and their employees had to dig lambs out of the snow in the very cold winter we have just had.

Mark Spencer: rose—

Mary Creagh: I will give way later, but I would like to make some progress.
	The Government’s own figures suggest that up to £280 million could be lost over 10 years in wages and in holiday and sick pay—a quarter of a billion pounds taken out of areas represented mainly by the parties on the Government Benches, where the cost of living is estimated to be approximately £3,000 more than for those living in urban areas. Up to £35 million a year could be lost in wages alone—again, those figures are taken from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment.
	I want to know what happens when money is taken from rural families on the breadline. Who will pick up the tab? People with children will have recourse to income-related benefits, such as tax credits, council tax benefit and housing benefit. Reducing rural workers to the poverty line will take money out of workers’ pockets and transfer it directly to their employers. We, the taxpayer, will pick up the in-work welfare bill. That will add to the deficit. As a strategy for rural growth and deficit reduction, this thoughtless abolition will be catastrophic.
	My second point is that the abolition will be bad for the food industry; it goes against business needs. Britain’s biggest manufacturing industry, the food production sector, needs more skilled workers. Instead, the Government are encouraging employers to race to the bottom on pay. That will see skilled workers turn their backs on the industry—and become MPs instead!
	There are 2.5 million unemployed people in the United Kingdom, 1 million of whom are young people. There are 25 million unemployed people in the European Union, yet the horticulture industry still says that it needs to bring in workers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme because it cannot find reliable British workers. It simply defies economic logic to suggest that a race to the bottom on pay is the way to attract the skilled new entrants that the industry needs.

Caroline Spelman: Is the hon. Lady unaware or simply ignoring the fact that the AWB was debated at length during the consideration of the Public Bodies Bill in both Houses of Parliament? Secondly, is she aware of the impact assessment’s conclusion that current wage levels are generally above the minimum, and that, with wage-setting practices and modern working practices in agriculture, wages are unlikely to be eroded, as farmers will need to attract their workers? That was its conclusion.

Mary Creagh: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady refers to the AWB and the Public Bodies Bill, the so-called bonfire of the quangos. The Bill certainly brought her a degree of notoriety, as it contained her proposals to sell off the forests and scrap protection for farm workers. She mentions the impact assessment. I am just quoting the Government’s figures: their estimate is as high as £280 million over 10 years, or with a best estimate of £260 million.

Jim Sheridan: Many times during the passage of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) met the National Farmers Union, employers and all the major people employed in the farming industry, all of whom recognised the valuable contribution of the AWB. Perhaps today we can find out who is the driving force behind its abolition. Employers do not want to get rid of it.

Mary Creagh: That is very interesting. I was just reading some of the responses to the consultation. One farmer said:
	“I am a farmer with 3 employees. The annual AWB wage award has been an invaluable tool to help determine wage awards...We are overburdened with enthusiastic government departments issuing guidance rules & legislation...The annual guidance for the level of wage awards is one of the few useful tools”.

Andrew George: It is quite clear that the proposal to abolish the AWB is not driven by a worry that it holds pay back or conditions down.

James Paice: Yes, it is.

Andrew George: If the Government are arguing that it is being abolished to enhance pay and conditions, we will hear that from the Front Bench in a moment. Does the hon. Lady agree that we do not want simply to go the lowest common denominator?

Mary Creagh: I have been making that point repeatedly. The hon. Gentleman has 1,110 people in his constituency who will be affected. I am afraid that we heard some noises off from the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire; he said, “It is,” so it seems that coalition divisions are once more being exposed, as I thought they would be. I look forward to having a chat with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) in our Lobby during tonight’s vote.
	I want to return to the role of the major supermarkets, which have silently supported the abolition of the AWB. Even the farm manager of the Duchy of Cornwall, which supplies Waitrose, responded to the consultation in support of abolition. The Duchy Originals website talks about food that “is good” and “does good” and says that it raises money for charity, but rural workers should not have to rely on charity to feed their families at the end of the week. Today’s figures on food banks, many of which are springing up in rural areas, give the lie to the fact that there is any overpayment in rural areas.
	The supermarkets trumpet their commitment to fair trade, but why is that only for workers in developing countries? Why not here? They trumpet their corporate social responsibility programmes in communities, yet are silent when it comes to reducing pay in their own supply chains. I quote again from the responses to the consultation. A vegetable producer in the north-west said:
	“We are unfortunately in an industry where we are seeing increasing pressure from retailers to lower prices of supply of produce,”
	and added that
	“some of our produce price returns are no higher in 2012 than they were over 10 years ago.”
	This has real implications for the sustainability of the food supply chain and the UK’s self-sufficiency, which has already fallen to about 55%, making us much more vulnerable to global shocks. The supermarkets have got to start thinking long term. We supported the Government’s creation of the groceries code adjudicator, although we would have preferred an ombudsman. We want fairness in the supply chain, but that does not stop with the horticultural businesses. It has to feed down to the level of the individual workers as well.

Toby Perkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case she is making. The Conservative party was once seen as the party of the countryside, but does not the Government’s shoddy behaviour demonstrate just who in the countryside it really stands up for?

Mary Creagh: Absolutely. It is not even clear whom they support in the countryside, though. I have quoted some farmers opposed to abolition. It is a bit of a mystery who actually wants it. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire has left the Chamber, so we will never know.

Glyn Davies: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s case, which makes it clear that she disagrees very strongly with the abolition of the AWB. The Opposition likewise made their opposition clear when other wages boards were abolished in the 1990s, none of which was brought back during the 13 years of Labour government. Will she give us an absolute commitment that, if the Labour party forms the next Government, the AWB will be returned forthwith? Will she give us that guarantee?

Mary Creagh: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to retain the AWB—I know that many in his constituency, including the Farmers’ Union of Wales, are against abolition—I hope that that will be reflected in his voting on our side this evening.
	I want to deal with the regulatory burdens that could fall on farmers. We have considered the history behind the AWB’s abolition. The board has survived until now thanks to my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, who listened to their constituents and were totally against getting rid of it. Constitutionally, abolition required consent, and they refused to give it.

Jonathan Edwards: The motion notes that it is
	“the Welsh Government’s wish to retain the AWB”.
	Scotland and Northern Ireland can keep their AWBs, of course. Is the hon. Lady making the case, therefore, for a reserved powers model for the Welsh Government?

Mary Creagh: I think the hon. Gentleman has made that case very well himself. We expect an announcement from our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, but they have made a commitment to retain the functions of the AWB in Wales. We will see what that delivers over time.
	All was quiet until the appointment of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson),
	who decided to abolish the AWB by tacking it on to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—a regulatory reform that could therefore bypass the Welsh Government. His Department conducted a pitifully short, four-week consultation. Let us remember that there was a full 12-week consultation on banning ash trees from Europe four months after Ministers were first told that ash dieback disease was here. We can see where this Secretary of State’s priorities lie—apart from the squirrels. He is swift to take money from workers’ pockets and hand it back to their bosses, but slow to defend the natural environment.

David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Secretary of State represents a border constituency? If, as expected, the Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly maintains the AWB at its own expense, members of the farming community in his constituency would have to travel only one or two miles, potentially, to get a better deal. He will have a skills shortage in his own constituency.

Mary Creagh: Absolutely. The Secretary of State has not only 1,120 agricultural workers, but a food bank, in his constituency, so that is an excellent point very well made.

Russell Brown: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being late into the Chamber and further apologise if my point has already been mentioned. I want to highlight to my hon. Friend that not long after the previous Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage, the Conservative party called for the abolition of the AWB, saying that the national minimum wage would cover it, which clearly it would not.

Mary Creagh: Clearly, the national minimum wage does not cover it all, which is why it was not abolished under various previous Tory Governments. Various Conservative Prime Ministers understood that if someone’s house was provided by their employer, they were in a uniquely vulnerable position when it came to negotiating their wages.
	Many small farmers want to keep the AWB so that they do not have to become employment specialists. They want to get on with running their business. Instead, this change will add to their regulatory burden. The Farmers’ Union of Wales, where 12,000 workers are covered by the AWB, opposes abolition. It has said:
	“Many farms in Wales run with relatively few staff, or indeed with family labour. The Agricultural Wages Board is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual members of staff.”
	Without the AWB, each farm business owner will have to negotiate terms and conditions annually with its work force. They will make mistakes, as employers sometimes do, and might end up in employment tribunals as a result.
	I want to quote again from one of the consultation responses. A farmer in Kings Lynn said:
	“I disagree strongly with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Order...the last thing I want to do with my limited management time is to negotiate wages with my 6 full-time and up to 30 part- time workers some of whom have worked for me for 30 to 40 years and have a strong personal relationship with me. I do not want to damage this by having to negotiate wages with them.”
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) asked why farming was different. I think that that answers his question.
	We have talked about gangmasters and licensing and, before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on the issue of workers’ accommodation. The Government’s impact assessment indicates that 25,500 farm workers have a house or cottage provided by their employer, and that another 4,700 live in other accommodation, such as caravans. The agricultural wages order defines “other” accommodation and guarantees all farm workers that it is fit for human habitation, safe and secure, and that every worker should have a bed for their sole use and be provided with suitable and sufficient free drinking water and sanitation.
	Abolishing the AWB will remove those guarantees on housing for farm workers. The accommodation will no longer have to be fit for human habitation, safe or secure. Workers will not be guaranteed a bed for their sole use, and there will be no requirement to provide drinking water or sanitation. I should like to cite the case of one of the firms that wrote in support of the AWB’s abolition, Suffolk Mushrooms. Last year, the firm was fined £10,000 for failing to have a safety certificate for the boiler in the men’s accommodation, and for various hazardous working practices that put workers’ lives at risk, including leaving high-level safety gates open. After the case was won, the Health and Safety Executive inspector, John Claxton, said:
	“Suffolk Mushrooms invested more than £1.5 million refurbishing its factory and mushroom growing equipment, yet failed to spend even a few hundred pounds to keep its employees safe”.

Caroline Spelman: Obviously the laws already exist to enable the Health and Safety Executive to fine employers, in every sector of the economy, when they break the law. Does the hon. Lady not accept that she is perpetrating the myth that farmers set out to exploit their workers? The vast majority of farmers listening to the debate today would be affronted by that suggestion.

Mary Creagh: That was a good effort from the right hon. Lady. The HSE will clearly continue to exist, but I am citing a case that happened last year, not at some other point in time. I ask her whether she thinks that conditions will get worse or better when the AWB is abolished.

George Eustice: The Agricultural Wages Board existed when that case came to light, so it clearly did not create the defence that the hon. Lady suggested it might.

Mary Creagh: The question for the hon. Gentleman is whether conditions will get worse or better when the provisions are removed. Will they be better or worse for a worker who does not have a bed guaranteed for their sole use? Opposition Members already know of conditions in which people are hot-bedding. Is that what we want to see in our farming industry? I certainly do not, and I am sure that the majority of farmers do not, but there will now be no legal requirement for an individual to have their own bed. I think that that is wrong; does the hon. Gentleman?
	The AWB was set up by the Attlee Government in 1948. Even Mrs Thatcher did not abolish it. She understood that if someone’s home comes with their job, they are in a uniquely weak negotiating position with their employer. However, last week’s Bill ended nearly 100 years of protection for farm workers. In the Labour party, we believe that the people who pick the fruit should also be able to buy it in the shops, and not have to rely on food banks to feed themselves and their children. As many farmers themselves have said, in their responses to the consultation, this decision will not secure a stable and prosperous future for the food and farming industry or for those who work in it. The Prime Minister once said that we were all in it together, but time after time, ordinary working people are first in his firing line. If Members want a rural living wage, they should vote with the Labour party this afternoon. If they are happy with poverty pay for their constituents, they should vote with the Government.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for securing a debate on this issue. I acknowledge the strong feelings that she has expressed, but I am firmly convinced that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is in the best interests of all those working in the industry. It will provide simplification and greater flexibility, thereby encouraging investment, growth and job opportunities in the sector.

Nia Griffith: Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how the board’s abolition will create job opportunities? Will it happen by driving down wages?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that early intervention. If she gives me a chance, I will explain my case. I take a completely contrasting view to hers. I have a positive view of agriculture and I see an expanding demand for labour in the countryside. I believe that the current minimum wage arrangements will give protection to those at the lower end of the scale, but I am absolutely convinced—because it is happening already—that the overwhelming number of employees in the sector will be paid well above the minimum wage. Let me make my case; I might be able to convince her.
	A successful agricultural industry will contribute to the growth of the wider rural economy, which is one of the four key objectives of my Department. Agriculture is vital for the UK. It produces much of the food that we eat and supports other industries that add nearly £90 billion to our economy. The food supply chain employs nearly 4 million people and includes the largest manufacturing sector in the UK. Exports of agricultural food and drink have seen seven years of continuous export growth and were worth £18 billion in 2011.
	There are huge opportunities for further growth within agriculture to meet the demands of feeding the world’s population as it grows from 6 billion to 9 billion. We want to ensure that the UK industry is in the forefront of meeting those demands, and we are already doing a great deal to help to ensure the success of the industry. An example is the joint Department for Business, Innovation
	and Skills-Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agri-tech strategy, which will provide a framework for research and the development of technologies. It will support growth through encouraging the global uptake of world-class UK-based agri-science and associated technologies, stimulating their translation into high-tech agricultural systems in the UK. We are working on the design of the new rural development programme, which we will use to develop professional skills, including business management and risk awareness, across the agriculture and forestry sectors.

Tom Blenkinsop: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be telling all this to the workers on his estate, but will he tell the House how many of the people on his estate will be affected by the termination of the AWB?

Owen Paterson: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I do not have an estate, and that I do not have any direct employees who take the agricultural wage.
	I shall take up my case again. In addition, I want to give businesses the tools they need to have the confidence to invest, adopt and benefit from innovative technologies and farming practices.

Andrew George: Those tools will be extremely helpful, especially for research and development, but in relation to today’s debate, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that agricultural wages and conditions will go up or down as a result of the abolition of the AWB?

Owen Paterson: As I said earlier, I am absolutely confident that there is a great future for the industry, and that there will be an increase in demand for labour, which will create pressure to drive wages up. Already, under the AWB, the vast majority of people in the industry are paid well above the minimum wage and well above the AWB minimums.
	Another key area in growing the economy is the roll-out of superfast broadband to rural areas, and increasingly wider access to 3G and 4G networks will also make it easier for farm and rural businesses to operate.

Jim Sheridan: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). If wages and conditions were to go down, if that were to encourage migrant workers to come to this country to work for the lower wages, and if that were to result in problems in the community, whose fault would that be?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated these issues over many years, and we simply do not agree. Would he like to go back to the arrangements under some of the earlier councils? Why did not the Labour Government re-establish the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods Wages Council (Great Britain), for example? Why did they not re-establish the Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower Wages Council, or the Pin, Hook and Eye and Snap Fastener Wages Council?
	Why did they not re-establish the rubber-proof garment-making industry wages council? This is the last throwback to an era during which these sort of councils did, I am sure, a worthy job, but we now have a free and expanding market and demand for labour in the countryside. To answer his question directly, I am absolutely confident that wages will be well above those currently set by the AWB.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The hon. Gentleman says “If”, but it is not a question of “if”: wages are currently well above those levels.

Jesse Norman: I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s confidence in the future of agriculture. As he will know, in Herefordshire we have a thriving agricultural sector, and it will be all the more enhanced by broadband. Does he share my surprise that despite its denunciation of the measure, the Labour party is unwilling to state whether it would restore the Agricultural Wages Board?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who picks up on the earlier question that the shadow Secretary of State singularly failed to answer. On my hon. Friend’s behalf, I pose this question to her: if a Labour Government were to be elected after the next election, would the AWB exist? Will they bring in legislation to re-establish an agricultural wages board?

Mary Creagh: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a direct question. We are two years away from the next election, and I am sure he will be looking forward with great eagerness to our manifesto. We will look at all measures that stop the public sector, the taxpayer, subsidising poverty wages, wherever they occur in our economy.

Owen Paterson: I think my hon. Friend will take that as a no.

Margaret Beckett: rose—

Owen Paterson: I give way to my esteemed predecessor.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has now asserted more than once, as has his predecessor, that the outcome will be to improve the wages and conditions of agricultural workers. In that case, will he tell us where the savings his Department identifies will come from?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that question. There are modest administrative savings from the running of this organisation. Labour Members concentrate on the impact assessment, which makes it clear that we have a dynamic market, stating:
	“Current wage levels are generally above the AWO minima & are underpinned by the National Minimum Wage.”
	On page 3, it says:
	“Government intervention is no longer necessary because…it is considered that there is no market failure in the agricultural labour market such that workers require protection which is over and above other statutory terms and conditions and wider employment legislation applying to all workers.”
	Let me pick up my thread again. I am confident that we have a thriving sector with demand for labour, which will push wages up, not down. I have touched on the farming regulation task force, which will remove a
	whole range of regulatory burdens from farm businesses. In fact, since 2011, we have removed £13 of compliance costs for every pound added. There will be 12,000 fewer dairy inspections a year.
	The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will complement and supplement this work. That is why I find the position of the Opposition Front-Bench team so disappointing. Agriculture is now the only sector of the economy to retain a separate statutory wages regime. There is no rationale for treating agriculture any differently from other sectors. More than 900,000 businesses in England and Wales are micro-businesses that employ between one and nine people. The vast majority of those cover sectors other than farming and do not require an independent body to set employment terms and conditions, so there is no reason why it is still necessary for farm businesses.
	It was in fact the last Labour Government who set up a single national minimum wage, and whose Minister, the noble Lord Falconer argued that
	“the Government”—
	namely the Labour Government—
	“do not believe that a multitude of regional, sectoral or other minimum wages is the right approach. It is neither sensible nor justifiable intellectually.”—(Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1240.)
	Agriculture has moved on significantly from when the current wages board was established 65 years ago under the Attlee Government. It is now a global business and the price of agricultural commodities is determined by international supply and demand. British farmers have to compete not only with each other, but with farmers overseas in order to sell both here and in international markets.
	The industry has become highly scientific and mechanised, with developments in plant and animal breeding, improved fertilizers and pesticides, and other scientific and technological advances. Workers in the industry need to be highly skilled and specialised. Modern farm businesses are no longer confined just to agriculture. Around a quarter of farms have now diversified into non-agricultural activities, such as rural tourism, retail and sporting activities. Rural tourism alone is worth £33 billion to the economy.
	The agricultural wages order takes no account of the changes within agriculture, but imposes an inflexible structure, which is no longer appropriate for the varied and diverse businesses within the industry. This is an industry whose processes, structures and products would be barely recognisable to those drafting or debating the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.
	Many farm businesses are faced with the burden of having to administer both the agricultural minimum wage regime and the national minimum wage regime. Employers have to decide whether or not a worker’s activity is covered by the provisions of the agricultural wages order or by general employment legislation. In some cases, there are grey areas as to whether or not work is covered by the agricultural minimum wage or the national minimum wage. For example, packing of salad and vegetable produce grown on farm would normally be covered by the agricultural minimum wage, whereas packing of produce bought in from other farms is not.
	Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will allow agriculture to compete on a level playing field with all other sectors of the economy, with all employees treated equally and all underpinned by the national minimum wage and other statutory provisions. Such an approach was championed by the last Government. Speaking in the Committee stage of the National Minimum Wage Bill, the noble Lord Falconer argued:
	“a single national minimum wage is a fundamental principle of the Bill. A single rate is easier to understand and fairer and easier to enforce...I believe that there is a great virtue in simplicity. The simpler we can make the provision, the simpler and more effective the Bill will be. People will know what their rights are. There will be no difficulty in understanding their minimum wage entitlement; and there will be no over-complexity, which might lessen the effect of the Bill.”—(Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1240.)
	It is that over-complexity and bureaucracy, as represented by the Agricultural Wages Board, that we are seeking to remove. This will improve the industry’s competitiveness to produce for both domestic and export markets. About 40% of our fresh vegetables and 90% of our fresh fruit are imported, so there are plenty of opportunities for domestic growers to improve their share of the market. Abolition will remove outdated and prescriptive regulations that hamper the ability of industry to offer flexible modern employment packages, such as the payment of annual salaries.

Tom Blenkinsop: Is the Secretary of State saying that enhanced statutory sick pay is an outdated term and condition for farm workers, who have now had it removed due to the abolition of the AWB? Is he really saying that?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. All the existing conditions continue.
	As I say, abolition will remove outdated and prescriptive regulations that hamper the ability of industry to offer flexible modern employment packages, such as the payment of annual salaries. It will simplify employment legislation in the sector, provide transparency and make it easier to recruit workers. In the absence of the board, farmers and workers will be able to agree employment terms and conditions that suit the requirements of the farming sector and the particular circumstances of individuals.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer a question that was asked many times but never answered when the Public Bodies Act 2011 was in Committee. Did the Government consider modernising the board rather than abolishing it?

Owen Paterson: All sorts of options were considered, but we concluded that the answer was to abolish the board, thus bringing agriculture into line with every other employment sector in the country.
	I fully understand the concern about the impact on workers’ wages and terms and conditions as they adjust to the level playing field and move from being set by a system of statutory wage fixing to being set by the market. However, the figures that the hon. Member for Wakefield and Unite have been using have been cherry-picked from the impact assessment and are based on the worst possible scenario, namely a reduction in the wages
	of every single worker in the agricultural sector. Anyone with any understanding of the farming industry, or the market, knows that that simply will not happen.
	The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will not
	“lead to a race to the bottom on wages in rural areas”
	or “impoverish rural workers”, as the motion suggests. It will give farmers and workers the same flexibility to agree terms and conditions as is given to employers and workers in all other sectors of the economy, while also securing the same levels of protection. Most workers already have terms and conditions over and above those in the agricultural wages order, and as contracts are already in place, their wages should not be affected. In 2010, the basic pay of full-time permanent workers was 12% above the AWB minimum for their grade, and non-permanent grade 1 and 2 workers were paid 4% above the AWB minimum for their grade. More than two thirds of permanent employees aged over 21 earn above the agricultural wage minimum at grade 1, and more than half do so at grade 6.
	The National Farmers Union has described the abolition of the AWB as “a progressive reform”, which is something in which the Labour party used to believe. The “bottom up” takeover of the party by the trade unions seems to be almost complete.
	I can reassure the House that agricultural workers who have existing contracts at the time of abolition will continue to retain rights to pay at the appropriate grade level, along with the other terms and conditions in the current agricultural wages order. For the avoidance of any doubt, we intend to provide for that in legislation. Employers will not be able unilaterally to alter terms and conditions for an existing worker without legal consequences. New workers coming into the industry will be protected by the national minimum wage and by wider employment legislation.
	The hon. Lady has described the national minimum wage as
	“one of the Labour Government’s greatest achievements.”
	Why should we not let agricultural workers benefit from that achievement? The national minimum wage provides sufficient protection for 99.5% cent of the work force, including those who operate factory machinery, those who drive heavy vehicles, and those who care for the sick, the elderly or children. There is no reason why it should not also provide sufficient protection for agricultural workers.

Margaret Beckett: The Secretary of State has repeatedly mentioned the national minimum wage and the fact that it was introduced by the last Labour Government. Let me say to him, as the former Secretary of State who introduced the national minimum wage legislation, that it was no accident that when we introduced that legislation—which was, of course, opposed by both the parties who are now in government—we did not abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, precisely because we recognised the particular vulnerabilities of agricultural workers.

Owen Paterson: In October this year, the Government will raise the national minimum wage by 12p an hour to £6.31. [Interruption.] Let me respond to the chunterings
	of the shadow Secretary of State by pointing out that that is 10p above the lowest band rate set by the Agricultural Wages Board. Agricultural workers supplied by a labour provider will continue to have the added protection of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We will also make changes to the working time regulations by means of secondary legislation in order fully to align the treatment of agricultural workers with those in other sectors.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the Secretary of State promise that if the wages and terms and conditions of agricultural workers start to decline after the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, he will reinstate the board?

Owen Paterson: I cannot promise anything. It is up to individual employers. What I do know is that employers throughout the country are crying out for good staff. Finding a good cowman is like finding hens’ teeth, and a really skilled driver of a modern piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of pounds is someone an employer will really hang on to.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Owen Paterson: I have already answered the hon. Lady’s question. She takes a completely black view of the economy, but this is an expanding sector that demands skilled people.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Owen Paterson: I am going to press on. Other Members want to speak.
	I believe that agriculture needs to encourage new and young workers to come into the industry. Evidence suggests that the skills shortage in agriculture will be greater in the years between now and 2020 than in other sectors of the economy. The agricultural work force is also ageing: 55% are over 45, which, again, is a higher figure than is found in other sectors of the economy. Under the new arrangements, market drivers will ensure that wages remain competitive. Farmers will need to offer competitive employment packages and career opportunities at all levels to recruit and retain workers to meet their business needs.
	Of course, we recognise the need to ensure a smooth transition for agricultural workers and employers to the new arrangements. Subject to parliamentary approval for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, we intend to invite industry representatives to a meeting to explore whether there is scope for future informal, voluntary industry engagement between employers and workers. DEFRA also supports a review of the agricultural skill levels used in the agricultural wages order, which will contribute to the broader work of the industry AgriSkills Forum. We will ensure that written guidance and information is available for workers and employers to help them understand the changes and what they mean for them.
	The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will allow the industry to modernise while ensuring that agricultural workers have the same levels of protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. It will ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for agriculture and will have benefits for those who work in the industry, as well as the wider rural economy.
	The motion seems to look upon the UK agriculture industry as though it is still powered by beer, sandwiches and steam, when in fact it is reliant on cutting-edge technology, machinery and science. The Government wish to equip the agriculture sector for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The Labour party and its union backers do not. We will vote against the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I think 12 Members wish to speak in the debate. I am reluctant to set a time limit, so if everybody speaks for about nine or 10 minutes, we will comfortably get them in. If somebody does not comply, they will be using another Member’s time and a time limit will be necessary. I hope that is clear.

Pat Glass: The Agricultural Wages Board is important in constituencies such as mine—rural communities where there is already much poverty, and wages are low. Established by the Attlee Government in 1948, the board has served us for the last 65 years, setting a minimum wage and terms and conditions of employment for workers employed in agriculture. It costs the Government little to administer; I am told that it will probably cost more to abolish than to maintain.
	It appears that the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is not based on financial evidence. It is yet another decision from a Government who spurn concepts such as data and evidence in favour of ideology and dogma. Once again, their adherence to ideology and dogma will have an impact on one of the hardest working and least well paid groups of workers in our rural communities.
	The Government were intent on abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board from day one. The original announcement was made in July 2010. The leading party in the coalition Government, whose MPs include members of the wealthiest landowning families in this country, hardly had time to get their well-heeled shoes under their new shiny Government desks when they made their initial announcement. However, before the Government could take the final abolition decision, I understand they were told that they needed to carry out a consultation of interested parties or face a judicial review that they would probably lose on the grounds of insufficient consultation, and that they needed the consent of the delegated Welsh authorities to abolish the board.

Mark Spencer: Given that the hon. Lady knew about the decision in 2010, has there not been adequate time between then and now to consider all the options?

Pat Glass: I am not the Government, so I cannot respond to that question. Had I been the Government, I would have stuck to their rules and standards for consultation. They did not.
	What did the Government do? Did they conform to Cabinet Office standards for consultation? Did they carry out an extensive 12-week consultation, avoiding main holiday periods, and making extensive efforts to ensure that all those affected, as well as all those with an interest, had an opportunity to take part? Did they
	carefully consider the outcomes of consultation in their final decision? Did they consult the Welsh Government, whose agreement was needed for abolition? They did none of those things; they came up with an extremely shabby plan to get round them.
	The Government redefined the Agricultural Wages Board as a “regulatory reform” to avoid the necessity of even trying to get the co-operation of the Welsh Government, and they cobbled together a four-week consultation that failed to meet their own standards on consultations, issued by the Cabinet Office. Even then, 63% of those who responded to that sham and shameful consultation disagreed with abolition, so they were simply ignored.
	Having failed to carry out a proper consultation, the Government decided to attach an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and pushed it through the House without debate. When the Government hold something that is clearly a sham consultation over four weeks instead of 12, ignore their own standards, and then ignore the results of the consultation, is it any surprise that people question, and are suspicious of, any public consultation?

Andrew George: The problem was not just the lack of consultation with the public, but the lack of consultation with the House. Those of us who were engaged in the passage of the Public Bodies Bill expected that there would be a full debate on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in the future but, whether through cock-up or conspiracy, we were denied that opportunity.

Pat Glass: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a decent way for a Government to behave. Hon. Members start to feel superior about foreign Governments that we consider illegitimate when we see them behaving in this way. We criticise such behaviour in others, and it is not what the House and the country expect from our Government.
	Why are the Government so desperate to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board that they will breach their own consultation and deny debate in the House? Is the board excessively expensive? Does it act illegally? Is it so far beyond reform that the only way to deal with it is by abolishing it in this high-handed manner? It is a public body that costs very little, yet decides the terms and conditions of agricultural workers. It sets rates for young workers, including those under 16, who are not covered by the minimum wage. It also sets out maximum deductions for tied housing, which affects up to a third of farm workers.
	Why are the Government so determined to use whatever means possible to abolish the board? Their only answer is that it is too bureaucratic for farmers, so implementing decent wages and conditions for workers on top of all that form filling to claim EU farm subsidy payments is clearly too bureaucratic. The Government argue that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, and hence the agricultural minimum wage regime, will simplify employment practices and remove an unnecessary regulatory burden. The problem for farmers is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with the predatory practices of the supermarkets, but all about the time it takes to read the annual bulletin from the Agricultural Wages Board.
	The Government’s impact assessment shows clearly that workers’ wages will fall by up to £34.5 million a year over 10 years as a result of abolition. For new contracts, the change in the value of annual leave, if employers implement statutory terms rather than those under the agricultural workers order, will be up to £13 million a year over 10 years. Farmers’ employment costs that represent transfer payments to the Government and others will fall as wages fall, so the Exchequer will also be hit, and that is before we consider the cost to the public purse of paying the working benefits that agricultural workers will need as their wages fall.
	The north-east is the region that has the smallest number of people working in agriculture. That is partly because it is the smallest region and partly because it has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. Nevertheless, 3,360 people in the north-east work on the land. The abolition of the board will have a direct impact on 60 people in my constituency. If we force agricultural workers off the land and cannot attract younger workers, just who do Ministers think will fill these jobs? Let me tell them: it will be people from overseas.
	According to the Government’s figures, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will take £260 million out of the rural economy over 10 years. It will take money out of rural communities, village shops, pubs and post offices, and away from everyone who relies on those businesses. Rural communities have already lost local buses, and the Government are set on a national funding formula for schools that has no place for a small schools premium, which will result in the closure of rural schools—hon. Members heard it here first. The abolition of the board will lead to lower wages, poorer rural housing and an increase in the number of immigrant workers on the land. The way in which the Government have brought about the abolition does them no credit whatsoever, yet the real tragedy is not the way this discredited Government have acted, but the real impact that their policy will have on rural communities such as mine throughout the country.

Simon Hart: I am glad to have the chance to speak in this debate. I have been getting increasingly frustrated, as is often the case, by what seems to be a cack-handed effort on the part of the Opposition to ingratiate themselves with the rural community. In so doing, they have managed to be pretty offensive to every aspect of the rural community.
	I can only share some anecdotal thoughts in this debate. Prior to entering Parliament, I spent 28 years working in various parts of that community. I have worked on a farm, I have worked for farms, I have worked for big estates and small estates, I have represented landlords, tenants and farm workers, and I have worked in forestry and country sports. There is almost no aspect of the rural economy and the rural community that I have not come into contact with over quite a long period.
	Throughout that whole period, not one single person ever said to me, “Of course, what we really need to do is preserve the Agricultural Wages Board.” In the run-up
	to the last election, I asked a group of farmers and farm workers in my constituency if there was a single thing that the Government could do: if there was one thing only on the Christmas list, what would it be? Without hesitation, the answer was, “Get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board. It has outlived its usefulness.”

Nia Griffith: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what members of the Farmers Union of Wales told him in response to that question?

Simon Hart: I can. The FUW members supported the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. The FUW as a union made rather a different representation. I speak on behalf of members in my own constituency. Of course I cannot speak for the union based in a different area.
	One of the things that I find startling is that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), rather than the whole party that she represents, seemed to find it impossible to believe that an owner, a manager, a farm worker and a forester can all work harmoniously together because they have a common shared love of food production or a common shared love of their community and want to do the right thing by their farmer. That seems to be a concept that the Opposition cannot absorb because they have a union-fuelled view that it is some kind of Dickensian existence out there. For those of us for whom it is our daily life—it is where I shall be by the end of tomorrow—it is not like that. It may be like that in Wakefield, but it ain’t like that in Pembrokeshire.
	I am particularly sad that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), is not in his place. He seems to be dancing to the union tune on the subject. I know Ogmore in the way that he knows Pembrokeshire, and we both know, as I said, that this is not an issue for agricultural workers in either of our constituencies. I am surprised that he has not stood up to the pressure from the sponsors of the debate and spoken on behalf of the agricultural workers, with whom we are all familiar and for whom we have great respect in west Wales.

Tim Farron: I deal with about 9,000 pieces of casework a year and I have not had a single farm worker write to me on the issue, which is surprising, but not when we think that the overwhelming majority of livestock farmers and dairy farmers in places like ours do not employ anybody, because they themselves are so hard up and are probably existing on significantly less then the minimum wage, considering what they earn and the hours that they work. We should be concentrating on how those farmers can get a fair deal for feeding the rest of us.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge because he represents an area suffering those hardships.
	I shall not speak for long. I find it bizarre that last night when my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) was fronting a debate on the hardship facing upland farmers, I was reprimanded by Mr Speaker for mentioning cattle when I should have been speaking about sheep. Never mind. Here we are debating something which is not relevant to the hardships facing the agricultural industry, certainly in
	my area, when we should be devoting our energy to other matters. I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State was not there to hear the debate, which was important and involved her party as much as it involved ours. I am surprised that we are engaged in the present debate when we know that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will not leave agricultural workers, certainly in my area, exposed or vulnerable.

Glyn Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believed that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board would lead to some decrease in the wage agricultural workers are paid, we would not be in favour of it? It will not make any difference at all. The Opposition are keen to emphasise that it will, and they are wrong because they do not understand the countryside. They are driven by a completely different motive.

Simon Hart: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong on only one point: he says that the Labour party does not understand, but I think that it understands only too well. It is caught in a difficult position because its union sponsors are saying one thing and its constituents in certain areas are saying another.

Yasmin Qureshi: May I just confirm that, as a former barrister, I neither belong to a union, nor am I financed by a union? I am concerned about the working conditions and pay of working people. I will ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked the Secretary of State earlier: if after the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board we find that workers’ wages, accommodation and so on deteriorate, will he reintroduce it?

Simon Hart: It might surprise the hon. Lady to learn that I am not a member of the Government and so I am not really in a position to answer that. Of course, I sat through 13 years of Labour disdain for rural Britain, and that question was asked on many occasions. However, I do not want to be reprimanded by the Chair twice in two days for getting off the topic by talking about union sponsorship, so if she will forgive me—

Mary Creagh: The hon. Gentleman said that the motion is somehow sponsored by unions. It is nothing of the sort. This debate is about a point of principle—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members are laughing. This debate is about whether people who work in remote, isolated areas, in unseasonable conditions and in one of our most dangerous industries deserve to be paid 2p an hour above the national minimum wage and to have some sort of protection against eviction from their homes.

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady will forgive me if I note that pretty much all the electronic traffic we have seen on this debate has been generated by her party’s biggest sponsor. Call me a cynic, but I am not going to accept her comments.
	I believe that workers in my area are protected by the minimum wage, employment legislation and a raft of accommodation legislation applying to tied cottages and the like. I do not recognise the image projected by the Labour party of farm workers in tied cottages, and have 28 years’ experience in the industry. I agreed with the Secretary of State when he referred to the noble
	Lord Falconer’s comment that regional and sectoral pay was a thing of the past. I find it odd that we seem to be disagreeing with that now.
	The final abolition of the AWB raises two questions, both of which have been raised before, but since neither has been answered I will ask them again. If the abolition of the AWB exposes young workers, foreign workers or people who are vulnerable, either through poverty or in some other way, in the way the shadow Secretary of State has set out—I know all about the unique aspects of agricultural work—why is it that no other sector in the UK from which a wages board has been removed is suffering from those consequences? Perhaps she could explain—we asked this question earlier but did not get an explanation—why those dangers are apparently unique to agriculture. I will ask her a third time, more in hope than in expectation: would Labour reinstate the AWB if it was lucky enough to form a Government in 2015? It is no good her saying that they have a couple years to come clean about their proposals. I think that this is absolutely the right forum and the right time to make clear the policy as it applies to the AWB of a party that might—I hope not—form a future Government.

David Hanson: I begin by telling the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that it is not just Conservative Members who represent rural areas; many of us on the Opposition Benches represent large rural communities, know them, understand them, live in them and want to represent them in the House today.
	In this week of praise for great Prime Ministers of the 20th century, I would like to add my words of praise for Clement Attlee for introducing the original legislation in 1948. I do so not to look back more than 60 years to the conditions in 1948, but to put it on the record that these things matter today for my constituents and those of other Opposition Members.

Russell Brown: I represent a constituency north of the border, where this discussion has no real relevance or impact, but farm worker constituents who have contacted me are in solidarity with their colleagues in England and Wales and say that what is going on is absolutely wrong. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) says that he has not been contacted, but I have. Perhaps his constituents have not contacted him because they have no trust in what he is doing.

David Hanson: This issue certainly matters to people across the whole of the United Kingdom because, even though the AWB is for England and Wales, its abolition will have an impact throughout the UK.
	In my constituency, 235 businesses are involved in agriculture and farming, and more than 11% of my constituents work in the agricultural sector. The market town of Mold in my constituency depends not only on the cattle and agriculture markets to bring people in, but on the wages of people who work in agriculture to maintain its shops, business and rural community.

John Glen: I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but the National Farmers Union briefing states:
	“The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) for 2010 showed that 90% of workers employed in agricultural trades received gross pay above £6.50 an hour”,
	which I think was the minimum set by the AWB. If he is seriously concerned about wage levels in the agricultural sector, how does he respond to that review of actual pay levels?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am genuinely worried that wages will fall when the AWB is abolished, and I am not the only one: the Farmers Union of Wales, which I will come on to later and which represents the bulk of farmers in my area and other farmers in Wales, supports the official Opposition’s stance against the abolition of the AWB. There is a division of opinion and we need to expose it.

Andrew Percy: I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman’s logic, so could he talk us through it a little more? If 90% of pay is already above the AWB’s minimum, how come it has not already fallen back to that minimum?

David Hanson: If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my argument, he will see that this is not just about pay. He was not here at the time, but the Secretary of State kept me up for 36 hours so he could vote against the minimum wage. He did not do that so that wages could rise; he did it so that wages would not rise. My worry about the abolition of the AWB is based on exactly the same principle: it will remove a floor that protects the work force in my constituency.
	As I have said, my constituency depends on agriculture and more than 11% of my constituents work in agriculture. Courses in horticulture and agriculture at Northop college bring in people to train in agriculture. These are key issues. Although Government Members may view minimum rates of pay, overtime, holiday entitlement, sick pay, rates of pay for young workers, compassionate leave, rest breaks, maximum deductions for tied housing, allowances for keeping working dogs and payment of on-call and night allowances as issues of regulation, to my constituents they are bread and butter matters that impact on their lives and they want their representative and others who represent rural areas in Parliament to stand up and speak on their behalf. They are not idle issues.
	I am getting a bit long in the tooth. I have been here for 21 years and the first Bill Committee I sat on was for the 1992 employment Bill that abolished every single wages board apart from the AWB. That Bill was taken through this House by the then Member for Stirling, the now noble Lord Forsyth, who is not known for his left leanings, but who decided to maintain the AWB because he recognised, even at that time, that it was crucial for conditions as well as wages.
	The national minimum wage has been mentioned. I was very proud to vote for the national minimum wage and am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) is here. It was one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government. The then Opposition kept this House up late into the evening because they did not support it. Why should we
	trust a party that does not support the national minimum wage when it says that this measure will maintain or improve pay and conditions?

Yasmin Qureshi: Is it not right that over the past 15 or 20 years, the Conservative party has always taken away working people’s rights and benefits when in government?

David Hanson: My main worry is that the assessment of the Welsh Assembly that some £26 million to £28 million will be taken out of agricultural wages in Wales over the next 10 years will prove to be correct and that rural poverty will increase. That is money that will not be spent in the shops of Mold, Holywell and Flint in my constituency, that will not help to sustain the rural economy in my constituency, and that will not be spent in the rural post offices, pubs and communities of my constituency. That money will be lost to the area. This measure will be damaging for the 13,829 people across Wales who work in the agricultural sector and who depend on the wages board.
	As I have mentioned, the Farmers Union of Wales, which, with respect to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), is not affiliated to the Labour party, has said on many occasions that it opposes the moves by the UK Government to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. It stated:
	“The Union has always supported the AWB and remains concerned that unless there are systems in place to protect payments to agricultural workers, the industry will not attract the highly skilled individuals it needs to thrive”.
	It went on to say:
	“As many farms in Wales run with relatively few staff, the AWB is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual staff”.
	It also said:
	“The economic climate within the agricultural industry has made it a less attractive option for young people, and rewarding skills, qualifications, and levels of responsibility is a vital means of persuading high calibre people to remain or enter into the industry.”
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, the Labour-controlled National Assembly for Wales was not consulted about the abolition of the AWB, as it should have been by statute. The Government failed to do that and passed the measure through the back door in a Bill that did not require consultation. The Secretary of State knows that he should have consulted the National Assembly. These are important matters for my colleagues there. As has been mentioned, the National Assembly may outline shortly its plans to keep the minimum wages and conditions set by the Agricultural Wages Board in a Welsh context. However, that will involve bureaucracy and cost. It would have been far better, particularly from a Unionist party, if the conditions had been maintained across England and Wales.
	As I mentioned in an intervention, the Secretary of State represents a border area. His constituency of North Shropshire is not far from mine; his borders Wales and mine borders England. If there are different terms and conditions on either side of the border, the market will flow across it. If the conditions are worse in England than in Wales, which they may be if the Welsh Assembly retains the board, the Secretary of State will find that there is a flow of individuals looking for better
	terms and conditions, who will perhaps only have to travel 1 or 2 miles across the border. I find it strange that that will be caused by a Unionist politician. Mold, Holywell and Flint in my constituency will lose income because of this measure, but I believe that there will also be a confidence issue.
	In conclusion, 63% of the people who were consulted did not support this measure and the Welsh Assembly does not support it. I accept, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire said, that Unite the Union does not support the measure to abolish the board, but it is part of a broad-based coalition that does not accept it. The Minister of State—the Tonto to the Secretary of State’s Lone Ranger—did not support this proposal in opposition, but is an advocate of it in government. He should examine his conscience and think about what is in the interests of his constituents.
	The people driving the change are the same people driving tax cuts for millionaires. They are out of touch with their communities and with rural areas. I am proud to represent a rural area and speak up for it in Parliament, and I will be proud to vote today and say that whatever has already happened in legislation, I support the AWB.

Andrew George: This is a difficult debate, and I am grateful to the Labour Opposition for having brought it forward. In a point of order after the debate on Lords amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill last week, I said how strongly I opposed our having had neither a debate or a vote on this significant matter. As I indicated earlier in an intervention, we had only limited opportunities to discuss the abolition of the AWB, among a large number of other measures, in our debates on the Public Bodies Act 2011. We were reassured throughout those debates that the House would have ample opportunity to debate the issue and come to a conclusion on it at a later stage, when a specific proposal was brought forward under the powers in schedule 1 to that Bill. I come at this debate on the basis of a significant disagreement with how the Government have handled the matter and frustration that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, it is important to have the debate.
	I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and did not get the impression that the AWB was being abolished because it was holding back wages and conditions for agricultural workers. In fact, I still have a strong impression that the opposite is true. I know that there has been a lot of speculation about the outcome of the abolition, but I am clear that it is not happening to enhance agricultural workers’ pay and conditions.
	I also find it difficult to understand the impression that the Government are giving, given the slogan “We’re all in this together”, which they adopted in their first Budget and which I approve of entirely. One good proposal from the European Commission on the common agricultural policy is to cap the single farm payment at €300,000 and disburse the money saved in different ways. That could have been on the agenda under the previous Administration 10 years ago, but we are where we are. On the one hand, the Government are content
	to pay cheques of more than £1 million to large farmers who, frankly, usually do not need it. On the other hand, I fear the abolition of the AWB will mean that more public funds need to be deployed to pay the wages of agricultural workers who find their conditions and wages cut, or to pay benefits to those whose standard of living falls below a certain level. In both cases, a lot of public money is involved, in one case enriching large farmers and in the other subsidising poverty in our rural areas. I am not content with that contrast, and I will draw conclusions about it at the end of my comments.
	The abolition of the AWB was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was in the Conservative party manifesto, however, and indeed the NFU made it clear in the lead-up to the last general election that it was very much in favour of the abolition of the AWB. That was certainly the case in my area, so my experience contrasts with that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on that point. One of the NFU’s key asks was the abolition of the AWB, yet when I raised the issue with farmers, I found that a significant number of them were opposed to that policy. They were opposed to it for the reasons the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has outlined, such as that it would leave them in the position of having to negotiate individually. The collective approach through the AWB provided them with a framework that enabled them to avoid considerable embarrassment and difficulty or having to buy-in human resources consultants to resolve things. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is right: few small-scale farmers employ agricultural workers, but those who do will encounter great difficulties if they have to negotiate these arrangements with their workers.
	I have regularly worked with the NFU over many years, not least on the creation of the groceries code adjudicator, for which the Government must be warmly congratulated. I have worked with it on a wide range of issues, and often agree with it and stand shoulder to shoulder with it—but not, I am afraid, on this issue. Regrettably, on matters such as this the NFU tends to resort to becoming a large farmers’ union, rather than an all farmers’ union; I have accused it of that to its face, so I am not saying this behind its back.
	Many pertinent issues have already been raised in our debate, and I shall not repeat the concerns expressed about the impact this move will have, and about the Government simply saying, “We have the national minimum wage, so we no longer need an AWB.”

Mark Spencer: Can the hon. Gentleman define for me what a large farm is? Is an intensively farmed three-acre poultry farm a large farm? Is a 200-acre dairy farm a large farm?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman might be drawing me into a different debate, but he knows about standard man days—I do not want that to be interpreted as a sexist term—and the number of jobs a holding generates, or requires in order to be maintained. That is calculated irrespective of the acres covered, because as his question implies, especially in less favoured areas—some of which fall within my constituency—there are geographically very large farms that have low productivity. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some farms that are small in acreage are intensively farmed and have high levels of
	productivity. He makes a good point, but the point I was making about larger farms was in the context of the fact that some—although admittedly very few—receive hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even over £1 million pounds, in public subsidy. He cannot deny that that is the case. Those sums are given to a very few large farms as a result of the arrangements through the single farm payment.
	I regret finding myself in this position. I know the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), has been handed a hospital pass with this issue since taking up his post, and I am enormously grateful to him for the work he is already doing through his conversations and meetings with people in the sector. Despite this regrettable decision, he is working with them to try to identify opportunities for voluntary agreements within the sector. I hope that will serve to provide some of the protections which I fear will be lost to agricultural workers as a result of this Government decision.
	There is something further that I regret. Normally, I feel enormously disappointed by Opposition day debates, because they usually degenerate into rather tribal, finger-pointing and teasing events, in which it is not possible to take the Opposition line on an issue because of how the debate has been handled. I regret that on this occasion—partly as a result of how the Government have handled the matter so far, by not giving us an opportunity for a debate or a vote—after a considered debate, I will be voting against the Government in the Division.

Tom Blenkinsop: The backdrop to this terrible and petty Government measure is the fact that real wages have fallen by £1,700 since this Government were elected. This is a Government who preach about making work pay, yet raise the national minimum wage by only 1.9% while consumer prices index inflation is at 2.8%. This is a living standards debate. Instead of raising standards for farm workers, the Government are engaging in a race to the bottom on pay and fair treatment.
	The first early-day motion I ever tabled in this House —early-day motion 754, on 6 September 2010—was a motion opposing the Government’s then proposals to eradicate the AWB. I did it with the full support of the Labour party, because we on the Opposition Benches know that the AWB protects pay and conditions for 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales and is used as a benchmark for others employed in food manufacturing. Some 3,360 of those workers live in the north-east of England and 170 of them are in my constituency. Once the AWB is gone, 42,000 casual workers could see a drop in wages as soon as they finish their next job. The remaining 110,000 could see their wages eroded over time.
	Let me ask the Minister straight out: why are the Government taking £260 million out of the rural economy in disposable income? That is how much will be lost in sick pay and holiday entitlement over a 10-year period. How do we know that? We know because the Department’s impact assessment tells us so. The loss to local businesses
	is not the only part of that cost, which also includes estimates for new HR costs and litigation for farming businesses that will no longer have the collective negotiating umbrella under which the whole labour market is regulated. Indeed, the last time an attempt was made to get rid of the AWB, even Baroness Thatcher had to U-turn. Not only did she U-turn, but the gravity of the deprivation that could have hurt hard-working people did not make economic or moral sense then, and it does not make economic or moral sense now. We believe that those people—often they do not own even 1 square foot of soil on the land—should at the very least be able to afford the food they grow on that land. The Government should be helping families across this nation to deal with rising living costs, not actively participating in driving down hard-working people’s pay—and all this from a Government who are doubling the nation’s debt in a five-year period, with accrual of debt outstripping any allegations of debt accrual against us over the 13 years of Labour governance.
	That is the perverse backdrop against which the demolition of the AWB is juxtaposed—a demolition that saves virtually nothing in Treasury terms, but which will ultimately bestow a huge tragedy upon rural communities. I repeat: it is a policy that saves virtually nothing, while the Government are also, as we know, cavalierly forgoing more than £1 billion in revenue that could be used for investment or to pay off the debt they are accruing. Instead, that money is being sacrificed to give millionaires a cut in the top rate of tax. Those millionaires could use that tax rebate, stick it with the Government’s spare home subsidy and buy up the surplus housing stock in some rural communities. The Government have just shafted people on AWB pay and terms and conditions.
	Farm workers work in all elements. They do tough, hard-working jobs, much like those in the steel industry that I know—hard labour, shifts and working outdoors. Those jobs lead to a far greater incidence of ill health. Farmer workers on the lowest grade will lose between £150 and £264 in sick pay once the AWB is abolished. The Secretary of State disagreed and said it would continue, but that is as long as TUPE regulations exist, and that is worth about 90 days in the current currency. A new employee in that sector will not be grandfathered like previous workers but put on statutory minimums, and the Secretary of State knows that.
	A quarter of the current work force covered by the AWB are over 55, and the change to sick pay damns those workers to the self-fulfilling perpetuation of grinding poverty that those on the Government Benches simply choose to ignore. Another point is just how exposed an individual is under the new terms. They will be negotiating their pay, terms and conditions while the AWB is being abolished. For example, if an individual is tied into accommodation, how will they be able or confident enough to raise the issue of sick pay or holidays without collective bargaining when their home is at stake? We are talking about real living standards. This is not some sort of arithmetical debate; these are real people who are going to suffer.

Neil Carmichael: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but does he recognise that 41% of farm workers currently earn considerably
	more than the national minimum wage, as prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board? That is a substantial difference.
	[Interruption.]

Tom Blenkinsop: As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said from a sedentary position, that means that 59% of workers do not earn that. Therefore, 41% have enhanced terms because a statutory minimum is in place—the same principle as for the national minimum wage. It is a different sector, but 59% of people do not earn that and there is no guarantee about what direction their pay, terms and conditions will go in. In economic terms, for the agricultural sector, that is mad.
	It is totally and utterly crazy to say that by undermining a statutory minimum at the bottom, pay will go up. That is just not the case, as the past 13 years of the Labour Government proved. The national minimum wage was put in place, but collective bargaining allowed enhancements to be brought in. If the floor is taken away, the floor goes through the floor—it goes lower and lower.

Neil Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman is so determined on the matter of the Agricultural Wages Board, why did the previous Labour Government not renew all other wages boards that were abolished under the Major Government?

Tom Blenkinsop: I would take those on the Government Benches more seriously if—pardon my slight diversion, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Government were not giving the full pay reward to the Army. Armed forces were awarded a 1.5% pay increase. The Chancellor announced the increase in the Budget at the Dispatch Box, yet delayed the start of those payments until 1 May. That is unique in the private or public sector. I have never heard of that in the steel industry, or any other manufacturing industry in the private sector, yet the Government are doing that to the armed forces—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Tied accommodation affects 30,300 farm workers and their families. Will Ministers at least guarantee that those properties will not be taken from under the noses of those workers, and potentially opened up to the new spares homes subsidy market so that millionaires can increase their property portfolios? This is a piece of despicable legislation, outdone only by the sheer cowardice of a Government who wish to pass this measure without attempting to justify one scintilla of it to the House in open debate.

George Eustice: I worked in the farming industry for 10 years and was involved in this debate when the issue was last discussed some 20 years ago—I will come back to that in a moment. It is worth noting—this has been alluded to by some, including the Secretary of State—that in the early ’90s, all other remaining wage councils and wages boards were scrapped. There was no rationale for them. Some 26 remained in about 1993, and all were abolished. Many covered sectors such as hotels, catering, retail, hairdressing and clothing manufacturing, but as the Secretary of State said, there were also some rather odd-looking boards such as those for the ostrich and
	fancy feather industry, or rope and net manufacturers. One has only to read lists of some of the industries to which the boards applied to realise that the whole concept is anachronistic and out of date.

Andrew George: I should have said that, like my hon. Friend, I too was an agricultural worker and worked on our farm. He says that the agricultural sector is the one sector that has been left alone, but it is also the sector into which the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was introduced, which demonstrates that it requires some underpinning with regulation.

George Eustice: Equally, we could say that the introduction of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority deals with some of the working conditions problems that Opposition Members have highlighted in a way that makes the AWB ever more redundant.
	To return to the 1993 debate, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Gillian Shephard, held a consultation. A small number of us in the farming industry said that the AWB should go; that it was out of date and anachronistic; that farming should not be treated as a special case; and that the AWB read like something from the 1950s. It tended to be the larger, more forward-thinking farmers who took that view, led by a large salads company, the G’s group, which was run by Guy Shropshire. It was not one of my most successful campaigns. The Government had some 3,500 responses to the consultation, of which only 11 were in favour of abolition. I was one of those 11. That highlights the massive swing in opinion. Opposition Members have highlighted the current consultation, but 40% of people who responded to it have said that abolition is the right thing to do.

Henry Bellingham: I want quickly to comment on a point before my hon. Friend moves on. Surely gangs now have that protection. They are totally different from the average farm worker in East Anglia, where very often someone is in charge of £500,000-worth of equipment and on a very high wage, on a farm that 40 years ago might have employed 40 people, but now employs two people who are highly skilled, very responsible and well paid.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend is right and underlines my point that the GLA has made the AWB ever more redundant. Those at the bottom on those low incomes have new protections.
	One big thing in this debate compared with the last one—it is important to recognise this—is that the National Farmers Union is on the right side. For once, it is saying that we should get rid of the AWB because it is out of date. In 1993, the NFU let down its members. David Naish, the then president, supported the retention of the AWB, and he was wrong to do so. The NFU board of directors at the time was out of touch and behind the curve, but the NFU now recognises that things need to change and fully supports and endorses the abolition of the AWB. If even the NFU supports the abolition of the AWB, it is time to act. Another big change since 1993 is, as many hon. Members have said, the introduction of the minimum wage, which is yet another measure that makes the AWB out of date and no longer necessary.
	How does the AWB frustrate rather than improve career development in the agricultural sector? The most important thing is the huge lack of flexibility. The board is based on old-style wage grade rates dating from the ’60s and ’70s, and completely ignores the fact that, in the most progressive farm businesses, many people are paid a salary and have management responsibilities. The best farm businesses have profit shares and payment by results. Piece rates are increasingly used when people earn far in excess of the minimum wage rates. Those modern day pay practices are completely ignored by the agricultural wages order, which can frustrate the development of more progressive pay policies in the farming industry and keep it trapped in a 1950s mindset.

Grahame Morris: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely, but cannot understand why anyone would want to do away with the minimum. He suggests that, in many sectors of the agriculture industry, people are highly skilled and receive higher remuneration than would be set as a minimum by the AWB, but why argue for its abolition if it does not affect those people? Surely the AWB protects a group of people who do not receive such higher remuneration.

George Eustice: The group of people the hon. Gentleman is concerned about are protected by the minimum wage. That is already there and is set at roughly the same level as a grade 1 agricultural worker, so I do not think that that is an argument at all. What I am saying is that being too rigid can actually frustrate the development of more progressive pay policies.
	The other point, which the Secretary of State touched on earlier—we had this in our farm business where some of the work was in pack houses—is that someone could be running a conveyor belt packing strawberries one minute and working in the field the next, with totally different wages rates applying. We ran a farm shop, in which different rates applied, even though there were sometimes shared staff.

Yasmin Qureshi: The hon. Gentleman states that this is a progressive pay policy. In the past 30 years, have a Conservative Government ever passed any legislation that has helped the working person, whether in terms of payment, work and conditions, or equality? Conservative Governments have never, ever advocated and voted for the rights of the working person.

George Eustice: I do not want this debate to get distracted, but even in the current Parliament the coalition Government have changed tax thresholds that help all working people, especially those on the lowest income.
	Another problem with the rigid pay structure is that, as currently structured, it can discourage training and career development in small farm businesses. I will explain why. A small farmer might have two or three employees. He might not be able to afford to employ someone on grade 2, grade 3 or grade 4. He might not really have a need for those staff to be trained to those grades, but might nevertheless take the view that to aid the career development of a new employee—perhaps
	someone who has just left school and joined their business—he will give them time off work and support them in proficiency tests and training. At the moment, if they do that, the next thing that happens is that they suddenly have to pay that person more money. Is it not better if that person can develop and train, and has a farmer who wants to facilitate that, so that maybe, when a neighbouring farm needs somebody who has the proficiency test skills and a different type of skill set, they are able to progress and take a job that is higher paid in that neighbouring farm? The farmer will want that to happen; he will be happy to encourage somebody and see a career develop. At the moment, however, we are in a situation where the rigid grade structure discourages farmers from wanting to have their employees seek further training.
	We have heard a lot in this debate, both from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) from my neighbouring constituency—we take different views on this, as people will have noticed—and others, about how difficult it is for farmers to negotiate with their staff, as if it is something that is dreadfully embarrassing and they cannot possibly do it. I reject that idea completely. Farmers, if they are still in business today, have to do all sorts of challenging things: they have to negotiate with people day in, day out; they have huge amounts of paperwork to deal with; and they have to negotiate and fight over the costs of their feeds, fuel bills and all sorts of things. The idea that they cannot sit down with the people they work with every day and have an intelligent conversation about their pay review is, frankly, ludicrous.
	Farm businesses are no different from any other businesses. Even if they do not have to have discussions with their employees about pay rates, one can guarantee that there will still be times when they have to have discussions about people turning up for work late and staff who have problems at home and need some time off—all those sorts of issues. There is nothing different about farming. I was in the young farmers club in Cornwall with many of the farmers in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know many of them and I can tell him that they are perfectly capable of having those conversations with their employees.

Neil Carmichael: I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. I, too, was a farmer in the 1990s, and know that farmers can easily negotiate. It is also important to recognise that agriculture today is a modern industry that is moving forward, with added value products, retail sectors and so on. All of that is happening to farms, so we cannot anchor them down to something as archaic as the AWB. It is not just a floor, but potentially a ceiling—something to which my hon. Friend has referred.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. Farming has changed.
	The biggest farm employer in St Ives is a firm called Winchester Growers, which does not receive subsidies like the large farmers and tends to rent land and employ lots of people. Quite often, young men who would have had farms themselves become managers and supervisors within such businesses and have a proper career structure, with profit options, share options—all sorts of things. It is very important that we modernise and move on.
	The AWB is a relic of the past. It is full of “bosses versus workers” rhetoric that is frankly 40 years out of date. It is right that it should go.

Jack Dromey: I start by declaring an interest: as deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite, I represented agricultural workers for much of my working life, and was proud so to do.
	I start by celebrating England’s green and pleasant land—our hills, our valleys, our forests, our farms, our rivers and our seashores, captured in that great hymn to the countryside, Linden Lea:
	“Within the woodlands, flow’ry gladed,
	By the oak tree’s mossy moot,
	The shining grass-blades, timber-shaded,
	Now do quiver under foot…
	And brown-leaved fruits a-turning red,
	In cloudless sunshine, overhead…
	To where, for me, the apple tree
	Do lean down low in Linden Lea.”
	But elsewhere in that great hymn to the English countryside it reads:
	“I don’t dread a peevish master;
	Though no man may heed my frowns”.
	That great hymn captured both the beauty of our countryside and another reality, which is that all too often the countryside has been scarred by the unfair treatment of workers and rural poverty. I have worked with farmers all my working life, so I am the first to acknowledge the changes in the industry and the many very good farming industry employers, but there remain to this day real problems.
	The 19th century, from Tolpuddle onwards, was a century of struggle, with real progress being made in the 20th century, but before anyone argues today that exploitation in the countryside is a thing of the past, let me say this. I listened to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time speaking, and rightly so, about modern-day slavery. Some of the worst examples of slavery, historically and in the modern day, were practised by gangmasters, as was seen at its most obscene in the tragic death of 22 young Chinese cockle-pickers on the bleak, cold shores of Morecambe bay.
	As a consequence of that incident, I chaired the coalition of support that brought the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 into law. It was a private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). There was a remarkable coalition from plough to plate, from the National Farmers Union to the supermarkets. I shared platforms with Baroness Gillian Shepherd, and we stood together, arguing for a measure that was essential to tackle some of the most obscene practices in the world of work in our country. Sadly, now, we are seeing, on the one hand, the scaling back of the operation of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, on the other hand, the proposed abolition of the AWB.
	It was Winston Churchill who first took action, as President of the Board of Trade, in 1908. He argued then that we needed fair treatment and to act to keep labour on the land. That was legislated for by the Attlee
	Government and championed by Harold Macmillan. That is 100 years of history now about to be torn up. I absolutely do not accept the argument that the Agricultural Wages Board is no longer relevant in modern times.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a great deal of expertise, and I agree entirely with his points about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I supported that Bill, as did a number of my colleagues, when we were in opposition. After the war, many farmers employed perhaps 50 or 60 people on what would now be considered a smallish family farm, and there was of course a need for a trade union and for the Agricultural Wages Board. It would have been difficult for those farmers to negotiate with their farm workers without such a board. Now, however, those farmers employ a tiny number of people who are much better paid because of the relationship between the farmer and the workers which never existed in the past.

Jack Dromey: We have an atomised work force. There has been a progressive change in employment patterns from what was typically the case 50 years ago to smaller, more flexible work forces with a lot of contract labour and very few people being permanently employed on farms. Having said that, the statistics show that the majority of those covered by the AWB still need the minimum standards that the board lays down. I will come to that point in a moment.
	I do not accept that the board is an historical anachronism—far from it—not least because half the work force is aged 55 and over and we still need to recruit and retain people to work on the land. Nor is it true to suggest that the board was set in aspic and never changed. Over the years, as a consequence of some very good dialogue, a modernisation process took place.
	The proposal for the AWB’s abolition is fundamentally wrong for four reasons. The first involves fair treatment. This is not just about minimum standards. Crucially, it is also about other conditions of employment, which really matter. The simple reality is that the difference between the statutory arrangements and the board’s arrangements will be that, in future, it will be possible for a farmer to pay someone who is off sick £81.60 a week less. Farming is a dangerous occupation for some, and we often see high levels of sickness as a consequence of the work.
	Secondly, abolishing the AWB is an inefficient way of proceeding. I asked the House of Commons Library to research the costs of the board, and I was surprised by the answer. I knew that it was lean and effective, but even I was surprised to learn that its administrative costs were £179,000 a year and its enforcement costs were £150,000. That fully functioning Agricultural Wages Board therefore cost a grand total of £329,000.
	Now, however, we shall see tens of thousands of negotiations taking place throughout the agriculture sector. I accept that, depending on the nature of the employment pattern, people can often get paid more than the level strictly laid down by the AWB. That happens all the time, as a result of a demand for a particular skill. However, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was right to say that, other than in circumstances of exceptional demand, it is convenient for farmers to use the framework laid down by the
	board. Farmers have said that to me, too. In future, however, we shall see negotiation after negotiation consuming the time and effort of our farmers.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested earlier that farmers were used to sitting down and negotiating with suppliers of feed, seeds and so on, but there is of course a framework involved in those cases as well, and those farmers know what the framework is when they commence their negotiations. If there is a total free-for-all, we run the risk of creating a race to the bottom.

Jack Dromey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about a race to the bottom. There are tens of millions of people on the continent who are desperate for work, and the last thing we want to see as a consequence of these proposals is a race to the bottom. My experience suggests that even where farmers depart from the AWB rates of pay—and they often do—it is helpful to have a clear framework and starting point, varied as appropriate in particular circumstances, depending on the skill level required, for example. Something very similar to that was put to me.
	My third concern is the impact on local economies. There is no question but that we run the risk of taking out badly needed spending power from our hard-pressed local economies. It is interesting to note the Department’s impact assessment of the costs over a 10-year period: £260 million was, I think, the figure referred to.
	Fourthly, we have heard time and again that “other wages councils have been abolished, have they not, and have not been reinstated”. This board is, however, unique in terms of its scope—including, crucially, the issue of tied accommodation. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said earlier about the criteria: fit for human habitation, safe and secure, a bed for sole use, drinking water and sanitation. Some might say that all that sounds a bit 19th century, particularly the idea of a bed for one’s own use. They would not say that if they had seen the sort of places I saw when I was deputy general secretary of the old T and G and then of Unite. I saw some of the most shameful accommodation—and not just for those employed by gangmasters, as it was sometimes for those employed by farmers. The great thing about the Agricultural Wages Board is that it lays down very clear basic minimum standards for the kind of accommodation that I hope we would all like to see agricultural workers occupying in our countryside.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful, particularly when I was not able to be here for the opening speeches. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about rural poverty, and I strongly support the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, as I campaigned for its existence and it is doing great work in my constituency. In a genuine spirit of curiosity, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is saying that farmers are uniquely incapable or uniquely exploitative so that they alone require the Agricultural Wages Board to regulate their behaviour, while every other boss in Britain does not. Is that what he is saying?

Jack Dromey: The board was born out of the experience of the agricultural economies. I have already said that, mercifully, our country has many good farmers who are dealing with changing patterns of mechanisation, the demand for greater skill levels and so forth. Pretending, however, that the exploitation of agricultural workers in the past is somehow simply a problem of the past and not still a problem to this day is not to live in the real world that I have lived in for many years.
	Winston Churchill must be turning in his grave. Dare I say it, the two parties of which he was a member have come together to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board for which he laid the path. The Prime Minister has said, after all, that he is proud to be a member of the union—not the Transport and General Workers Union or Unite, but the National Farmers Union. His position, then, is not surprising. It is astonishing, however, that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who has talked in recent years—not 50 or 100 years ago—about the need not to impoverish the rural working class should now, presumably following a Damascene conversion, talk about the need to get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board as a burdensome anomaly. Perhaps he will explain later how he squares those statements.
	In conclusion, this issue is above all about what is in the best interests of the countryside. The question we need to ask ourselves is what kind of country and what kind of countryside we want to live in. I could put it no better than the hon. Member for St Ives did when he spoke earlier about the meaning of us all being “in it together” in circumstances where a £1 million cheque can go to a big farmer on the one hand, while the Agricultural Wages Board is abolished on the other hand. That is why we are unashamedly standing up for the best traditions of our country and the best traditions of our countryside—and the best traditions of our countryside are best served by a fair deal for our countryside.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind the House that the debate is time-limited, and must end at 5.47 pm. It will be necessary to draw it to a conclusion at about 5.27 pm in order to allow the Front Benchers to respond.
	I ask Members to curtail their remarks to eight minutes—which will include interventions on their speeches—because otherwise not everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so. I ask those who are intervening repeatedly, and who may have already spoken, to exercise a bit of discipline. I ask those who do not plan to speak to restrain from intervening out of respect for those who are still to speak. I remind those who are still to speak that they do not have to give way. It will then be possible to accommodate everyone who has sat patiently through the debate thus far.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	We should recognise the progress that agriculture has made over the last 70 years. We are now well fed as a nation, without the worry of food security. We should
	recognise what a good job agriculture, agricultural workers and farmers have done in feeding the whole of Europe during those 70 years since the second world war, and, when we compare the industry of today with agriculture in the 1940s, we should recognise how different it is now, and how different are the relationships of agricultural staff with their employers.
	The first argument that we heard from the Opposition—that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board would not save any money—wholly missed the point of the debate. This is not about saving cash for the Government; it is about recognising the changing dynamic of agricultural work in the United Kingdom in a modern setting, and recognising the safeguards that have been introduced by other Governments and other parties. The minimum wage established a floor for the wages of all workers and has given them wage security, while changes in the legislation governing gangmasters have protected agricultural workers who are employed by them. The Agricultural Wages Board has become redundant. It is no longer a necessity because there are other safeguards, irrespective of the changes in the dynamic of agriculture.
	Let me draw a few comparisons. If an agricultural worker who is charged with the responsibility of driving quarter of a million pounds’ worth of combine harvester makes a mistake in setting the sieves, much of the crop may go over the back of the combine. For the farmer, it is vital that the right member of staff, with the right skills, is sitting in that seat to protect his crop. I do not understand why a warehouse worker driving a forklift truck for Amazon does not need extra protection, but the combine harvester driver does.
	A potato harvester can probably harvest £50,000 worth of crop, so damage to just 10% of that crop could cost a farm business £5,000 a day. Again, for the farmer it is vital that the right member of staff is driving that tractor and helping to ensure that the business is well looked after. If the right member of staff with the right skills is to sit on that seat, the farmer must pay him the right amount. The farmer must give him the right terms and conditions, or else he will walk off to another farmer.
	The market for skills of that kind is driving agricultural wages to a much higher level than was provided for by the Agricultural Wages Board. Agriculture as an industry has changed dramatically since the 1960s. The House must recognise that.
	Another argument we heard was that agricultural workers are particularly vulnerable because they live in tied cottages. I do not understand why the Opposition do not make the same argument for public house managers who work for a brewery and whose home is the public house itself. Why do they not require the extra protection farm workers supposedly have from the Agricultural Wages Board? The manager of a post office often has a flat above the business. Their accommodation is tied, so why do they not require extra protection? Double standards are in play.
	Agriculture has moved on. The key question is whether the Opposition would overturn the abolition if they were in power. They were challenged on that point several times during the debate and on three occasions they refused the opportunity to answer. There is some cynicism on the Government Benches. Is it a political
	game? Is it about making a political point rather than a genuine one about improving the lot of people working in rural communities?
	As a number of speakers want to follow me, I shall keep my comments as short as possible. I hope that in summing up, the Opposition speaker will address some of the points I made.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I have a constituency interest, and I led for the Opposition in the Committee on the Public Bodies Bill, so it is a matter of some disappointment to me that in the intervening two years the Government have not refined their arguments, nor have they produced further evidence to suggest why the board should be abolished. Given the catastrophic effect abolition could have on the pay, terms and conditions of the country’s 152,000 agricultural workers, not least in my constituency, where well over 100 workers will be affected, it is important to ask serious questions of the Government about why they consider it necessary and, in particular, whose interests they are serving.
	As we have heard, the Agricultural Wages Board was formed in 1948, but its lineage goes back to 1924. The fact that it has survived so long is testament to its continuing relevance. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is right: it has modernised over the years and could modernise further. The board has demonstrated its importance for protecting the rights of workers in the sector. Those rights are now very much at risk.
	The Government’s response when asked why they want to abolish the AWB is that agricultural workers, like others, are now covered by minimum wage legislation. Excellent though the minimum wage legislation is, it does not cover the same range of wage levels and categories as the AWB. The agricultural industry needs to attract people with the right skills and aptitude, which is becoming more important as farming methods continue to develop technologically. The AWB has a grading system for the terms and conditions of employment for agricultural workers that reflects the diversity of skills needed and the responsibilities attached. As many others have said, minimum wage legislation does not cover the many other areas overseen by the AWB, such as the standard of tied accommodation, overtime rates, sick pay and holiday entitlement. Why are the Government abolishing the board, and in whose interests will it be?
	When the Public Bodies Bill was being considered in Committee, far from Labour Members being out of line, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) suggested, it was Government Members who were out of line, because the only people supporting abolition were some parts of the National Farmers Union. Indeed, it was only some in the union. We received many representations from farmers and farm workers who thought that getting rid of the AWB was an extremely bad idea because they liked the structure that it gave to negotiations.
	We know that the abolition is not in the interests of not only hard-pressed agricultural workers, who stand to lose significantly from the change, but those wishing to enter the sector. I have a very good agricultural and horticultural training college in my constituency. From
	talking to several of the young people studying at Houghall, I know that they are worried about what will happen to terms and conditions in the sector following the abolition of the AWB. They are also concerned that they will no longer have a clear career ladder after leaving college, yet no Government Member has addressed that problem. We know from Lantra, the skills body overseeing the sector, that another 60,000 people will soon be needed in the industry because 25% of agricultural workers are over 55. Ministers cannot seriously be suggesting that the abolition of the board will make the industry more attractive to young people, because they have told me directly that it will not.
	The abolition is not in the interests of the rural economy as a whole, especially in the north-east, given that millions of pounds will be taken out of an economy that is already suffering from high unemployment. The Government’s policies have hit my constituency hard. The latest unemployment figures show that City of Durham’s claimant rate has almost doubled in the past 12 months, which is one of the biggest rises in the country. It will be difficult for people in the agricultural sector to argue for a better standard of living when unemployment is so high, because they will be told, “If you don’t like it, lump it, because there are lots of people in the county who will be able to take your job.” The Government simply are not addressing that problem, yet because the abolition of the board will remove workers’ protections, it will be more difficult for them to argue for a better standard of living.
	I will conclude, because I want to give others time to speak, but it is difficult to understand what the abolition of the board will achieve. It does not cost much to operate, but it protects workers in the sector, and sets a clear framework for negotiations and a career structure. It could be modernised in line with the new skills needed for farming, but one can only assume that the Government, as they have shown with other policies, are hellbent on driving down the wages of the low-paid in this country while at the same time giving tax cuts to millionaires.

Neil Parish: I am proud to say that I still consider myself to be very much part of the farming community. I was saddened by the way in which the shadow Secretary of State tried to portray farming and farmers. I took part in a debate on Radio Devon after she had made a statement in which she went on at great length about things such as gangmasters, as if to suggest that every farmer was a terrible employer, but I do not recognise that situation in Devon or across the farming sector.
	I am saddened by how the debate has proceeded. Some 40-odd years ago, I left school at the age of 16 to milk cows. I started on a farm of 50 acres. With the help of NatWest bank, which charged me enormous sums for the privilege, I managed to build up the farm to about 250 acres. During that period, we sometimes employed people, while at other times we did all the work ourselves.
	Farming and the farming community have changed so much. Many hon. Members have made the case that farm workers are extremely valuable because of the
	type of farming that we carry out. In dairy farming, the milking parlours are equipped with computers which determine, for example, the amount of feed that the animals have. In the poultry industry, the buildings are temperature-controlled and farmers must make sure that the poultry are fit and free from disease. The same applies in the pig and sheep industries. The entire farming industry has changed hugely. When one gets on to a tractor, it lights up like a Christmas tree because there is so much computer equipment in it, reflecting the fact that it is difficult to operate. Of course we value the farm workers who operate all that equipment.
	The farming industry is progressing. Reference was made to the green and pleasant land that we all live in and the good, healthy food that we are fortunate to have in this country. Who produces it? The farmers and the farm workers. We produce it together and I am proud to be part of that industry. I am sick to death of this debate, which is all about the long history of the Agricultural Wages Board and from where it started. I would be the first to admit that there was every good reason for it in those days, but now we have minimum wage legislation and an industry that has moved on. We want agriculture to be competitive and to move forward and employ more people on higher wages. We want a much more efficient industry.
	I believe there is a bright future for agriculture. All the Agricultural Wages Board does is hark back to a past that we want to leave behind. It is right for us to take these decisions. The figures that we have show that more than 90% of agricultural workers are, fortunately, paid above the minimum wage, and we welcome that fact. During the debate, the sheer negativity from the Opposition has upset me. I would take their move to defend the Agricultural Wages Board much more seriously if they had replied to the question—they have been challenged three times on this—of whether they would make retention of the AWB a priority of the next Labour Government if this country were mad enough to put them back into power. I will therefore reply for them. They are not going to replace it. That is certain.
	All the Opposition are here for today is to play politics and try to portray the farming community as terrible Victorian employers. We certainly are not. I say “we” because I consider myself still part of that farming community. I do not recognise the farming community painted by the Opposition. I find it offensive—I will be blunt about it—to be portrayed in that way. We do not employ people on poor wages. We want to progress people. During my farming career I had quite a number of young people who came and worked on the farm. We trained them, they moved on to other jobs and I am proud of that.
	Let us not make this a debate about class warfare, with terrible rich landowners who are out there exploiting the workers. That is not what the debate is about. It should be about whether the Agricultural Wages Board is necessary. I do not believe it is. Why is it the only wages board left? It was left originally because there was no minimum wage legislation, but since that legislation has come in, there is no need for it. Hon. Members are worried that farmers and farm workers who have such responsible jobs on the modern farm cannot sit down with one another and negotiate their own wage rates. Surely hon. Members know that that is possible and that it will happen in the real world.
	We have already abolished the Agricultural Wages Board, but I will be voting against the motion, which seeks to reinstate it, because I know full well that it will not be reinstated. It is a political ploy on the part of the Opposition to have a little debate. I end by reiterating, for the third time, how offended I am by the way in which the farming community has been portrayed this afternoon.

Nia Griffith: Ministers have still not convinced me about why they want to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. If they are so convinced that agricultural wages will not go down, why are they so determined to abolish it? Why should it matter to them if it continues to exist and people continue to be paid at the rates it sets?
	DEFRA’s own assessment has calculated that abolishing the AWB will take £260 million out of the rural economy over the next 10 years. That can mean only one thing: the 80% of agricultural workers who are on grades 2 to 6 will be vulnerable to having their pay driven down to minimum wage levels, regardless of the skills involved, not to mention the antisocial hours and the need to be out in all weather, using complex machinery, but still getting wet and dirty. Of course, that means less money in the rural economy, with a knock-on effect for the village shop and others employed locally.
	We talk about fair trade for developing countries and getting a fair price for their products so that their farming communities can get reasonable rewards for their efforts. After much campaigning by Opposition Members, and indeed the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Government have agreed to give the groceries code adjudicator some teeth, which is an important step towards tackling exploitation and giving farmers a fair price for their produce. However, it is equally important to ensure that the workers who harvest that produce are fairly remunerated, and the AWB has a vital role in protecting agricultural workers.
	In other words, it is not enough that the groceries code adjudicator ensures that the supermarket does not exploit the farmer; the AWB’s conditions also ensure that the farmer does not exploit the worker. That is particularly important because, as a response to the Macdonald report, the Government are now threatening to reduce the impact of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, whereas we would like to see its remit extended to cover sectors such as care homes and construction.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, the Farmers Union of Wales is firmly opposed to the abolition of the AWB. I find it quite insulting that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) seems to have completely ignored what the FUW has on its website and what it has repeatedly said when it has come to see us.

Simon Hart: What I actually said was that the members of that union in my constituency who have approached me take a different view.

Nia Griffith: Well, farmers in general want to be fair to their staff, and I would certainly say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that
	the good guys do not need the legislation, but legislation is necessary for those who do try to exploit people and who do not necessarily play by the rules. As I have said, most farmers want to be fair.
	Many farmers in areas such as rural Wales are both employer and employee, because they often work on contract for other farmers. They might sometimes employ agricultural workers, but they or members of their family might also be employed as agricultural workers. They have said themselves that it is not about being unable to set pay rates, but that it is far simpler and fairer in a rural community to say that everyone will go by the same rate. That is the importance of the AWB, and that is exactly what the FUW has been telling us.
	Of course, it is not just about a minimum wage, because there are all the other things that the AWB sets, such as allowances for night work and being on stand-by, bereavement, sick leave, holiday entitlement and the rates for under-16s, none of which are covered by the national minimum wage legislation. In a rural community there are few alternative job opportunities and it is difficult for agricultural workers to find alternative employment. The cost of living is often higher because of the higher costs of transport and fewer opportunities to shop around for cheaper deals.
	Those who rely on their employer for accommodation are even more vulnerable. There is often no alternative accommodation in rural areas, and the AWB plays a vital role in setting maximum charges for accommodation and minimum standards of sanitation, and in making sure that each worker has their own bed to sleep in.
	What will happen when casual workers start their next job and find that the going rate is less? For many of them that will mean that their households incomes fall, so more families will become more reliant on higher levels of tax credit, which will not be good for the public purse. It would be far better to make sure that they had the proper rate of pay for their work and a proper wage from their employer, so that they could be less reliant on handouts.
	This is part of a seemingly much wider attack by the Government. I regret that the legislation to abolish the AWB is being passed in such an unpleasant way and by the back door, when the Welsh Government made a very strong case to keep it in Wales when it was part of the Public Bodies Bill, not the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. This has done a terrible disservice to our rural communities.

Grahame Morris: I support the Opposition motion to resist the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. Government Members have accused us of waging class war, but this is an issue of social justice and if that means that it is also an issue of class, I make no apology.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) quoted Winston Churchill, who, amazingly, has been quoted three or four times by some surprising sources in this place over the past couple of weeks. I looked up Mr Churchill’s quote, and hon. Members might be interested to know that he spoke in class terms:
	“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions…where you have what we call sweated trades”.
	There are no bankers or accountants present on the Government Benches, but there are some farmers and others associated with the industry. They will know what sweated trades are, so I do not need to explain that to them. On sweated trades, Churchill said that
	“you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst…where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.”—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
	That was Winston Churchill arguing for the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Boards, so who am I, as a socialist, to argue with Winston Churchill? He was absolutely right.
	In his excellent speech the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke of how the industry has developed and how farming has morphed into large agri-businesses and the food trade has gone global, and how that has put particular pressures on rural workers.
	We on the Opposition Benches are concerned that the living standards for rural workers will go backwards. It is scandalous that last week we were not even afforded the courtesy of a debate, let alone a vote. The Government should think a thousand shames that they whisked through their plans to not just dismantle, but to abolish the AWB. It was disgraceful that Parliament was disregarded by a Government in a hurry to sweep away 100 years of workers’ rights and a century of consensus on rural living wages and housing standards.
	Members keep asking why those rights should apply to rural workers and not to other groups of workers. As we have heard from a number of Members, the answer relates to tied accommodation, training and compassionate leave. The provisions also apply to workers who have to have dogs, presumably for sheep farming, so the AWB is different and there is a strong case for retaining it.
	We saw just this week in The Sunday Times rich list that there is still massive personal wealth in the United Kingdom. Among those who are doing the best and who are luxuriating in extreme largesse are a number of UK food manufacturers—not large farmers—including Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and 2 Sisters, which is one of the biggest food processing companies in Europe. At No. 80 in the rich list is Lord Vestey, the owner of Stowell Park, which is one of the businesses that lobbied for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.
	Government Members accuse Labour Members of arguing the case of the trade unions. I am a proud member of Unite the Union and make no apology for that. If standing up for agricultural workers is a sin, I am guilty and unrepentant. However, it is also clear who is behind the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. It is the big businesses that are tightening their grip on the food industry that lobbied for its abolition.
	The abolition will affect 150,000 people in England and Wales and about 5,500 agricultural workers in my region. I have discovered that 55 families in my constituency will be affected. We have heard about the history of the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board, so I will not rehearse it.
	I was intrigued when my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), used to be a vociferous supporter of the retention of the Agricultural Wages Board. Early-day motion 892 of the 1999 to 2000 Session, which he supported, stated that
	“any weakening of the Agricultural Wages Board or its abolition would further impoverish the rural working class, exacerbating social deprivation and the undesirable indicators associated with social exclusion”.
	What has changed? Is it that the AWB is outdated and bureaucratic? Have the conditions of agricultural workers changed so much that we do not need it? I do not think that that is the case.
	The third of agricultural workers who live in tied accommodation will no longer be protected by a cap on the amount that their employers can charge them for accommodation. They would risk losing their homes if they rejected downgraded contracts. That implication of the abolition was raised with me by an agricultural worker. We have also heard that the abolition will potentially cost agricultural workers £260 million in lost sick pay and holiday pay over the next 10 years.
	Although the Government’s mantra is that they want to make work pay, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will lead to a race to the bottom in wages and terms and conditions for agricultural workers, and will therefore make work pay less. If wage protections are abolished, agricultural workers will see their terms and conditions squeezed. Nobody is tarring all farmers with the brush of being unscrupulous employers and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington was at pains to point out that many of the farmers he came across were very good employers, but there will be some who pass the pressure from the supermarkets on to their workers. That is a real concern.
	Costs are much higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in 2010 that people living in rural areas spent between 10% and 20% more on everyday needs than those in urban areas. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the weekly spending of rural households is more than £50 higher than that of urban households, which must be a problem for a rural workers.
	It would not have been acceptable not to have a debate, and it is not acceptable for the Government to ignore the outcome of the consultation; let us put it on the record that it indicated that the board should be retained. They are facilitating the redistribution of income away from some of the most vulnerable workers in the land to some of the wealthiest private individuals in the land. That is why the Opposition motion and the debate are to be welcomed.
	I ask the Government to show the same care and attention to the living standards and wages of the poorest as they have to the richest 1%, who are now enjoying a top rate tax cut. If they wanted to protect the living standards and wages of the poorest in society, they could make a good start today by not abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board and by allowing trade unions, employers and independent representatives to continue to negotiate fair terms and conditions for vulnerable workers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On occasions such as this, at the closing of a debate, we often hear words about what a fine debate it has been, what eloquent testimony Members have given and what a fine day it is for Parliament. There have indeed been some very fine contributions today, from both sides of the House, and I will return to some of them in a moment.
	Today, however, I have to say that this is not a shining occasion for Parliament. Far from it. It is a disgrace that the Government seem to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight to debate an issue that they seem to want hidden from democratic oversight. That is no fault of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, but entirely the fault of Ministers. The attempts to curtail debate, or even to bypass the elected House of Commons and the democratic will of the Government in Wales on the matter, have been shameful and truly desperate.
	Today, the views of parliamentarians, including Members representing rural areas, will be revealed to their constituents through both the debate and the vote. Their views will be revealed on stripping away the protections of 152,000 workers in England and Wales—protections on pay scales and accommodation; sick pay, holiday pay and overtime; caps on charges for tied accommodation; protections for children under 16 working in the fields; and the simple and basic entitlement of an agricultural worker in a team of workers at the end of a long shift to their own bed—their own bed, for goodness’ sake. The Minister of State has argued that the national minimum wage has changed all that, but he knows that it was in place before he signed an early-day motion warning that the abolition of the AWB would
	“impoverish the rural working class”.
	We are now in the most preposterous situation. A Liberal Democrat Minister is working, I suspect—he will clarify this—against his own long-held and principled position; against the views and interests of more than 1,000 workers and their families in his constituency, many of whom will have lobbied him in recent weeks and months,; against the views of many smaller, hard-pressed farmers who see the abolition as an increase in complexity in wage negotiations; against the views of the Liberal Democrat lead on rural and environmental issues in Parliament, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), which prompts the question: will the real Lib Dems please step forward?; and in favour of an ideology that could well be one of “beggar the hindmost”.

Anne McIntosh: I have been chairing a meeting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this afternoon.
	I apparently have the largest number of agricultural workers in my constituency, and not many of them have contacted me on this matter. I do not think more than three have done so. Where is the hon. Gentleman getting his information from?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady says she has been contacted by just three, but three is three, and I know for a fact that a large number of Members—many of whom are, for understandable reasons, not present for this debate, but who will, I assume, be passing through
	the voting Lobby—have been extensively lobbied by agricultural workers in their communities. The question is this: how will they vote today?
	In the midst of the economic gloom of Osbornomics—that is a commentators’ phrase—with the economy flat-lining and the rural economy suffering too, the Government’s own figures show that more than a quarter of a billion pounds could be taken out of the rural economy following abolition of the AWB, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) pointed out, we could well add to the burden by increasing rural poverty and the in-work benefits bill to the taxpayer. This is, indeed, the world turned upside down.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Members on the Government Benches have asked what Labour would do when in power in 2015. I know how difficult it will be to pick up the pieces of this appalling mess, but would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to do so, because it has wrongly been said that we have already made up our mind not to re-establish the AWB. When the AWB is abolished, it will, in effect, be shattered into little pieces. Its mechanisms will be entirely taken away, but I will tell my hon. Friend what we will do: Labour has already made clear its proposals under the Fair Work Commission—which I hope Members on the Government Benches will support, even though they opposed the work of the Low Pay Commission, which resulted in the national minimum wage, which they have been praising today. There will be a new commission that will consider our emerging proposals on the rural living wage, extending the remit of gangmaster legislation and tackling the agency workers question, and thereby addressing the undercutting of pay and conditions in local areas. That will no doubt be the arena in which our response to the abolition of the AWB will be developed. I suspect—in fact I can guarantee—that the Government parties will not be carrying out any similar piece of work. [Interruption.]
	Any pretensions to respect—[Interruption.] I think Government Members want to know whether we would put the egg together again after they have broken it into a thousand pieces. I hope they understand from what I have just said that many of the proposals we already have in relation to the Fair Pay Commission run completely contrary to the free market, deregulatory ideology, and therefore both the Conservative Secretary of State and the Liberal Democrat Minister would oppose them, but I suspect many of the Minister’s Liberal Democrat friends would support them.
	Any pretensions of respect for the views of this democratically elected House and the Welsh Government were ripped apart by this coalition Government when they sought at every opportunity to bypass votes and debate in this House. This proposal should have been taken through in full in what was then the Public Bodies Bill, and then brought back here and fully debated at length in this Chamber—and the issue of the legitimate right of the Welsh Government to be heard should also have been discussed. Instead, the proposal was rushed
	through a pitiful four-week consultation after the new Secretary of State arrived in post. The majority of respondents to that consultation in England and Wales opposed the abolition of the AWB, but that was ignored.
	The proposal was then snuck into Committee in the other place in a different Bill, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which had already left the Commons, thus avoiding the need for any awkward debate here. After heated exchanges, and opposition from bishops, Labour peers and some Cross Benchers, the Lords eventually supported the abolition. When the proposal returned to this House as Lords amendments, we were denied the time and the opportunity to debate it or even to vote on it. So here we are today, in a debate brought by the Labour Opposition.
	As we debate this matter today, therefore, the Government have conspired to abolish the AWB through the unelected House of Lords. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Education says “Hear, hear.” He may regard democratically elected representatives so lightly, but we do not; we like to have a say on behalf of our rural, and other, constituents. I ask the Government to think again.
	I appeal to all parliamentarians who support the abolition to think again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) appealed to Unionist Conservatives who are concerned about taking a cross-England and Wales approach and about cross-border issues to maintain the AWB. In no way is the hon. Member for St Ives somehow in hoc with union paymasters—contrary to the allegations that have been made against Members this afternoon—or acting at someone else’s behest. He speaks independently as the lead voice for the Liberal Democrat party, as opposed to the Minister, on rural issues. On that basis, what we are seeing is quite fascinating.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) called this a living standards debate. He is quite right. He said the proposal did not make economic or moral sense in the 1980s, under former Prime Minister Thatcher, and it does not make sense now either. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) brought some poetry and morality to the debate. He raised the real alternative to abolition, which is further modernisation, which has happened before—a point made also by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods)—and asked the fundamental question: what type of countryside do we want?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said that fairness was about not just the groceries code adjudicator, but fair pay and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) cited Churchill in defence of the Agricultural Wages Board. As we noted earlier in the debate, even former Prime Minister Thatcher stayed away from abolishing the AWB. There were also great contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and others.
	I appeal to all those Lib Dem parliamentarians who long held this as a point of principle and who have been lobbied by their constituents. They should stand with their constituents and with us, support low-paid workers
	and smaller farmers and stand against rural poverty. I appeal to Conservative MPs who want to speak up for all their constituents, small farmers as well as large, low-paid as well as wealthy. They should be compassionate, one nation Tories, not just the representatives of the wealthy and the powerful in the countryside. If I cannot appeal to their better nature, let me appeal to their baser political instinct—not least those whose parliamentary majorities are smaller than the number of agricultural workers in the constituencies affected, such as the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and many others.
	I am glad we have had this debate. Some have commented that it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. That is no fault of ours, but when the vote comes, people will see where Members stand on a fair rural community, fair wages and fair conditions for everyone.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) did the House a service by pointing out the disparity between last night’s excellent debate in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—in which we heard contributions from all parts of the House, from Members who knew rural areas, knew the agricultural industry, were deeply committed to it and understood what the implications were—and today’s debate, which sadly has on occasions fallen short of that ideal.
	That is not to say that there are not Members present who very much understand rural areas and represent their constituents, but that is not how I would characterise the opening speech from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), representing Islington Labour and its deeply patronising view of what happens in rural areas and the capabilities of people who work in rural areas. I resent that in the same way that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. However, we welcome the fact that the hon. Lady has finally returned to the Chamber to hear the conclusion, if not the substance, of the debate that she called.
	Let us deal with the issues raised, the first of which is the lack of debate on this issue. I am extremely sorry: I regret that there have not been debates on the precise motions that came from the other place last week. However, to say that there has been no debate on the issue is nonsense. Over the last three years I have debated this subject for hours with Members represented in this debate. We have had endless debates on a subject on which everybody knew every side of the argument, so that claim is nonsense. We could even have addressed it—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who made the point of order—when we had the debate on the Lords amendments the other day. Indeed, had the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)—whom we are always glad to see in this country from his clubbing expeditions abroad—decided that this issue needed to be debated, as colleagues say it does, he could have done so. There was time to debate it but he chose to make speeches on other subjects instead. That is why we had no debate.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no meaningful consultation and that we did not notify people. I sent 13,000 letters to every single person or organisation covered by the order on agricultural wages, explaining what was to be done and asking for comments. That is unprecedented. It did not happen under the Labour Government but we did it because we wanted to ensure that people had the opportunity to respond.
	The issue of Wales was raised. Let me let the House into a secret: I did not produce the legislation that provided for the devolution settlement in Wales, and Labour’s devolution settlement did not devolve employment issues to the Welsh Assembly Government. That is why such matters remain an issue for this House and this Government. No amount of argument from Welsh Ministers will change that settlement, only a change in the statutory format for the devolution settlement, which I do not believe the Labour party supports.
	Let us consider the substance of this case, which is the crux of the matter.

Jack Dromey: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: I will because the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge on this subject and I therefore welcome his views.

Jack Dromey: Will the Minister tell the House at what point and why he moved from believing that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board would
	“impoverish the rural working class”
	to his current position of saying that it must be abolished as it is a “burdensome anomaly”?

David Heath: There were a number of points. There was the introduction of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the Employment Act 2002, the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the Pensions Act 2008, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. All those provided the protections that I wanted for rural workers. They exist, and that is why we no longer need the Agricultural Wages Board, because it duplicates that position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am glad he asked me that question.
	In reality, when we debated these issues, Labour Members in support of the Labour Government resisted me when I spoke about rural poverty and denied that the biggest single removal of money from rural areas was the fuel escalator, which far outweighed anything that could possibly happen through the provision under discussion. They resisted my Fuel Poverty Bill applying to rural areas; they would not even allow for the existence of rural poverty, yet now they have the nerve to lecture the Government about what happens in rural areas.
	Let me be clear because misinformation—deliberate I think—is being spread about some areas of this subject. There is a suggestion that people who work in the agriculture industry will no longer have any protection, which is absolute nonsense. The national minimum wage affects 99.5% of all workers in this country but is
	apparently hopelessly inadequate for the other 0.5%. However, I believe that the national minimum wage—which after the recent settlement is now well ahead of the first grade of pay for agricultural workers—is a valuable protection.
	Every single worker who is currently paid under the protection of the Agricultural Wages Board will continue to receive that protection and to enjoy every aspect of their pay and conditions, and we shall ensure that they receive the benefit of legislative protection on that.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: I am afraid I have no time left.
	Opposition Members are telling us that the basement protection for the lowest-paid workers is the 2p difference per hour between last year’s AWB rate and the national minimum wage, and that that makes all the difference to rural poverty. I am afraid I do not believe that.
	As many Government Members have said, agricultural workers are a precious resource in our rural areas. Do Opposition Members not understand that farmers cannot get a skilled stock man or woman in many areas? They have to pay them to attract them. Do they not understand that farmers do not put someone on the national minimum wage in charge of a £500,000 machine? That is the reality of the modern agriculture industry.
	We are therefore left with a statutory body that, uniquely, deals with career progression in one half of one industry—the AWB does not apply to everybody in food and farming. I simply do not believe that a statutory body is necessary to do that—we can do it in better ways. I want to see career progression, flexibility of contracts and modern conditions. Those are the keys to a modern and effective agricultural industry.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 215, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Counterfeiting of the Euro and other Currencies

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6152/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework decision 2000/383/JHA; and welcomes the opportunity to consider whether the UK should opt in to the draft Directive.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Detrunking of part of the A69

John Stevenson: I am pleased to be able to present this petition on behalf of my constituents asking the House of Commons to urge the Department for Transport to examine the feasibility of the detrunking of the A69 from the roundabout at Brampton to junction 43 of the M6. The petitioners and I believe that that would make the road a great deal safer for all concerned, including those in the villages along the route, which includes a primary school. The petition has more than 1,600 signatories.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of County Councillor Nick Marriner,
	Declares that the A69 should be detrunked from the roundabout at Brampton to Junction 43 of the M6 and rerouted along the A689 and that this will make the current A69 a safer road for the communities which live alongside it.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government works with Cumbria County Council to ensure this happens.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	[P001172]

Mobility access to Goring and Streatley Station

John Howell: I should like to present a petition from more than 1,000 local residents about the railway station at Goring in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Goring and Streatley and the surrounding area,
	Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the provision of mobility access to Goring and Streatley station.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the installation of lifts at Goring and Streatley railway station when the station footbridge is rebuilt in 2013–14 as part of the track electrification programme, thus ensuring that mobility impaired passengers are able to have equal and step-free access to the trains that serve the station.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001173]

GIRLS AND ICT CAREERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joseph Johnson.)

Chi Onwurah: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to the House on such an important issue today. Tomorrow is international girls in ICT day, so it is particularly appropriate that we should mark the occasion by debating what we can do to attract more girls into information and communications technology. I understand that the Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), will be marking the day by speaking at a “Little Miss Geek” celebration of fashion and technology; I am glad to see a Government Minister supporting efforts to encourage girls into ICT. Celebrating technology, and women’s contribution to it, is one way of helping the sector to become more representative of the 51% of the population who do not have the Y chromosome. Right now, women make up only 12% of professional engineers and 15% of those applying for computer science degrees.
	I hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister, will do more than speak at events and offer warm words of encouragement. I hope—indeed, I expect—that they will implement concrete measures to ensure that we overcome the dreadful disparity in the representation of women in ICT—a disparity that shames us as a nation, as well as impeding our economic and social progress. As you may know, Mr Speaker, this subject is dear to my heart. Having worked as a professional engineer in telecommunications for 23 years before entering this House, I know just how much more can be done to encourage and support women in ICT.

Seema Malhotra: Speaking as one who has been a computer programmer, I, too, understand the need for increased opportunities for girls to go into the communications and technology industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a cross-government strategy that involves the education system as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? We need to improve the opportunities available for girls at schools and to encourage them by role models to learn about science, computer programming and other useful subjects.

Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and welcome the bringing of her direct experience of computer programming to this debate. She is absolutely right. I shall explain in the remainder of my speech the wide range of issues that need to be addressed if we are to overcome this disparity. We really need a positive approach and champions for it across the whole of government.
	When I started my degree, 12% of my fellow electrical engineering students were women. That was almost 30 years ago. It sounds like a very long time, and it is indeed depressingly long. The most depressing thing of all, however, is that although women now make up 43% of GPs, 41% of solicitors and even 22% of Members of Parliament—a third in the Labour party, I should add—the proportion of female engineering students has not increased at all. That is scandalous. In computer science, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) may well know, the figures are getting worse.
	The proportion of computing A-levels taken by women went down from 12% in 2004 to 8% in 2011. There is only one girl for every 11 boys in the average UK A-level computing class. We should imagine how it feels to be that girl.

Justin Tomlinson: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this incredibly important subject. In the specific part of the video games industry, only 17% of staff are females and the industry is crying out for more. What we really need is role models to inspire the next generation and address that imbalance.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. It is certainly the case that the video games industry is a modern one; one would hope that it would be reflective of society, including those who play games, but it is not. I shall show a little later that the figures I have for females in the video games industry are even worse than the hon. Gentleman’s 17%.
	At the same time, half of the UK’s co-educational state schools send no girls at all to sit A-level physics. In 2012, 2,400 female students from the UK went on to full-time undergraduate computer courses, as opposed to over 15,000 men. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of technology jobs held by women declined from 22% to 17%. My figures show that only 6% of those who work in ICT in the UK games industry are women, despite the fact that they make up 50% of those who play the games.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) raised an important issue earlier. I spoke to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) before the debate, asking if I too could intervene on her speech.
	According to e-skills UK in Northern Ireland, the potential for Northern Ireland to be a global leader in the field of technology will increase over the next few years, and 9,200 jobs will be needed over a five-year period. Along with the industry, e-skills UK in Northern Ireland is taking active steps to encourage ladies and young girls to become involved. Does the hon. Lady think that the active measures that are being taken in a region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland might serve as an example for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Chi Onwurah: I agree that we need to be very active in encouraging girls into the industry. I am pleased to hear about the job opportunities in Northern Ireland. There are other job opportunities throughout the country, and we need to ensure that girls are in a position to take advantage of them.
	Gender segregation is at its most extreme in skilled trades such as that of electricians. Women constitute only 1% of the work force in such occupations, which is barely significant in statistical terms. I commissioned House of Commons Library research which has armed me with a large—depressingly large—number of similar statistics. It is clear that we are doing much worse in this regard than many of our European and OECD counterparts. I want to focus on what we can do about it, “we” being the ICT sector, civil society and, as I hope the Minister will acknowledge, the Government.
	I worked in ICT as an engineer for 23 years. I must emphasise that I was often fortunate enough to have great male bosses who were determined that working in an all-male, or almost all-male, environment should not be a barrier to a successful career for a woman. However, I have known other managers who were not so supportive, and company cultures that worked against attracting girls and women into ICT and did absolutely nothing to help them to stay there.
	Last year, when I was a shadow business, innovation and skills Minister, I wrote to 10 of the leading companies in the engineering and technology sector to ask what they were doing to improve the situation. I wrote to BAE Systems, Google, Microsoft, IBM, ARM, Rolls-Royce, BP, Shell, Ford and Jaguar Land Rover. Their responses are summarised on my website. What was quite amusing was that two of the companies addressed their letters of response to “Mr Onwurah”. I shall not name them, but it did make me wonder how accustomed they were to engaging with women.
	Not surprisingly, nearly every company claimed that it was hiring women in proportions above the national average. The exception was ARM, which candidly said that the proportion of women was higher in its divisions outside the UK, especially in India. Female literacy in India is just 65%, while male literacy is 82%. The fact that India is doing so much better than we are in regard to ICT gender balance is particularly striking for that reason.
	It is also striking that IBM did not respond to my inquiry despite repeated entreaties, while Google and Microsoft responded but refused to release any figures. As relatively young companies, at least in comparison with, for instance, Shell and Rolls-Royce, they might be expected to be at the forefront of gender equality. Both Google and Microsoft cited confidentiality as their reason for not revealing the proportion of women whom they employed in ICT. That is rather strange, because it suggests either that Google and Microsoft do not know how to aggregate and anonymise such information—which, given that they are leaders in big data management, is worrying—or that they have so few women employees that giving the figure would necessarily identify individuals. That is also very worrying.
	The more traditional companies were more open about releasing figures, with Ford giving the most detailed breakdown across different job types. Most firms said that the main problem was a lack of qualified female candidates in ICT, engineering and science, and all the firms said that getting more women into those fields was a corporate priority. Most outlined steps that they were taking, from overhauling corporate procedures, for example, making sure that women were on interview panels, to intervening early in schools to steer girls towards STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects and careers.
	Companies emphasised the importance of female role models in encouraging female graduates or apprentices to join them, and detailed the steps they were taking to develop networking forums or to push high-potential females up the employee hierarchy. ARM was the most forthright when asked what private or public sector initiatives firms found useful. It said
	“most initiatives that directly address the issue are clearly failing at a national level and make little difference.”
	According to the ARM representative, the most effective means would be role models and TV commentators or presenters who make the subjects sexy and exciting. I agree in part. A high profile ICT series on TV would probably change perceptions overnight. We saw what the success of “Silent Witness” did for the proportion of women in forensics.
	The responses I received showed that there is such a wide range of challenges to address that we need a wide-ranging response, as was mentioned earlier.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that employers could do much more by offering work placements, early apprenticeships and visits to factories, and that the Department for Education needs to do more to encourage interaction? Young people could then make decisions much earlier about whether ICT was a career they would be interested in. Often, it is too late when they are 18.

Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend. She raises an extremely important point and I shall dwell on it in more detail later. She is right. One of the key messages that I hope the Minister will take from the debate is the importance of ensuring engagement with employers. Often employers are willing to make arrangements to go into schools, but do not feel that they can identify schools or know how to set about it.
	We should encourage employers to engage with schools. One of my first parliamentary questions was to ask who was responsible for ensuring engagement between industry and primary schools. The response was that no one in the Government was responsible, in either the Business or Education teams. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in her response.
	As well as improving the image of ICT, we need to look at the working environment of women in ICT, and at higher, secondary and, very importantly, primary education, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and careers advice. We also need to look at our culture, which socialises girls to think that ICT is not for them.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend have a view about the suggestion of some educationists that it would be helpful if some schools separated girls in ICT classes? Some people say that when boys get into the ICT classroom they dominate the machines.

Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In single-sex schools, it is certainly the case that more girls study A-level science than in co-educational schools. There is evidence that girls do better in a single-sex environment. It is not clear whether that is due to the presence of strong female role models or, in other schools, the influence of boys who may be more aggressive in taking resources. I would say to my hon. Friend that schools should examine ways of ensuring that girls are engaged and excited. For example, I know that all-girl science and computer science clubs successfully engage girls with ICT in an environment that they find comfortable and stimulating, which is what we are trying to achieve. If we are considering how society socialises girls away from ICT, we could wonder why
	girls’ toys are generally pink and patronising, and rarely involve any ICT participation, while boys’ toys tend to be more centred on engineering, machines and ICT.
	The sample of responses that I received demonstrates just how much is being done. I am worried that Microsoft and Google, which are role models in their own right, do not appear to want to let anyone know how well—or how badly—they are doing. I trust that the Minister agrees that it is essential that we have such information if we are to understand what we need to achieve. However, I was impressed by the measures that many companies are taking to attract girls to ICT, which suggests that there an increasing desire for change which was missing during large parts of my career in the industry. Indeed, I was at an industry event only last night at which several representatives of large ICT companies raised that issue with me before I had the chance to ask them about it. Given that I usually raise the issue with such companies at a very early stage, one can imagine how quickly they beat me to it by talking about that to me.
	There is a large number of initiatives in place, and as part of my preparation for this debate, and given that tomorrow is girls in ICT day, I crowd-sourced examples from Twitter. I was impressed by the number of organisations that are actively working to attract girls to ICT. For example, Nominet is sponsoring computer clubs for girls and Sunderland Software City in the north-east is setting up a coders academy. Primary Engineer encourages primary school pupils to engage with STEM education. As we have heard, we know that it is critical to engage girls at a young age, before preconceptions have formed, because by the time that they are taking their GCSEs, they might have ruled themselves out of ICT due to earlier choices. Little Miss Geek, Girl Geeks and ScienceGrrl try to inspire girls into ICT, while WISE promotes female talent in science, engineering and technology from classroom to boardroom. Athena SWAN and STEMNET—the science, technology, engineering and mathematics network—support women in ICT and STEM careers, and help to them become role models for the next generation.
	While there are many initiatives, the challenge is to know how well they are working and how to help them to work better, yet I fear that the Government are failing to take up that challenge. I suspect that the Minister will disagree with that, but let us look at the evidence. The Government ended funding for UKRC, the organisation dedicated to supporting girls and women into ICT. They claim to be making the ICT curriculum more flexible, but they are in fact simply disapplying all standards and requirements of the national curriculum. They have reduced support for, and undermined, careers advice, which is the key way of helping into ICT those many girls who have no direct contact with ICT professionals as part of their background.
	The Government have reduced support for small and medium-sized businesses. Increasing diversity in the workplace can be more challenging for SMEs that do not have dedicated human resource departments and may instead rely on older recruitment methods—for example, employing friends of current staff, which means that the work force does not become more diverse over time. Of course, employing one’s friends can happen in larger organisations, and even in Government. But the Government should be offering more support for skills
	in small businesses, rather than turning Business Link from a face-to-face support organisation into a website and a phone line.
	We have no roadmap, no plan, no targets and no framework to help us assess whether we are on the right track to attract more girls into ICT. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing? Can she say how, for example, if I am a teacher in a primary school in Newcastle, I can find out what resources are available to make ICT more appealing, and what incentives there are for doing that? What steps are the Government taking to use subjects which do engage girls, such as climate change, to make ICT more appealing? Will removing climate change from the national curriculum make that easier or harder? How is the Minister ensuring that primary school teachers in particular have the right ICT skills themselves, given the higher salaries paid in the private sector? Research shows that because of the cultural factors relating to ICT and girls, the quality of teaching is a far more important factor in girls’ decisions in relation to ICT than it is in boys’ decisions.
	What are the Government doing in response to the Nesta report on video games entitled “Next Gen—Transforming the UK into the world’s leading talent hub for the video games and visual effects industries”, which said:
	“The content and delivery methods of computer science teaching will need to change to address ... misperceptions (especially in the eyes of girls)”?
	In December 2011, Ofsted said in its report “ICT in schools 2008-11”:
	“Very few examples were seen of secondary schools engaging with local IT businesses to bring the subject alive for their students. This was a particular issue for girls, many of whom need a fuller understanding of ICT-related career and education options to inform their subject choices at 14 and 16 years of age.”
	How has cutting back the careers service Connexions to become solely an online and telephone service helped this? The House of Commons Education Committee described this change as resulting in a “worrying deterioration” in the overall standard of careers advice.
	The lack of women in ICT is a scandal but it also a huge loss. It is a loss to the country, with a talent pool half the size it could be. Every year the Institution of Engineering and Technology’s skills survey shows a severe skills shortage, and it is no wonder if we are excluding half our population. I am sure the Minister will be interested to know that it also represents a loss to women in not having entry to these rewarding careers and therefore contributes to the gender pay gap. The average technology professional’s salary was over £38,000 per year in 2011, 50% higher than the average across all sectors.
	The lack of women in ICT represents a loss to society of the types of ICT that might come from non-male perspectives. I do not hesitate to say that an ICT work force that was more representative of humanity would result in technology which was more humane. All too often technology is imposed upon us aggressively and before it is fit for purpose. And yes, I am thinking of automatic tills at supermarkets when I say that. It is common sense, because we know that innovation comes from the creative exchange of ideas between individuals. If all the individuals in a company or sector come from the same background, there is necessarily a limit to the ideas and innovation.
	There is also an intangible loss, but a hugely important one, to our society. Many of the challenges we face, such as climate change, an ageing population with greater health needs and a world of 7 billion people, have technology at their heart, but we are handicapped in addressing them because technology does not have a place in our hearts. Technology will never have the position it merits at the heart of our society and economy if it remains the preserve of such a narrow section of society. To drive our economy forward sustainably, ICT needs to be a part of our society and our culture. Given the challenges we face as a nation, we cannot allow ICT to remain such a male occupation.
	In conclusion, to improve the gender balance in ICT the Government need to show leadership in ways that are more concrete than mere warm words of support. I hope that is what I will hear in the Minister’s response.

Elizabeth Truss: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for raising this important subject and respect her experience in the sector. It is a crucial area for the economy, and one where we need to increase the number of people, particularly women, who have relevant IT skills.
	Earlier today I attended a “hackathon” event at Facebook headquarters, where 80 talented young coders from around the world were developing applications for social learning, and I am pleased to say that there was a good representation of young women there. Organisations such as Facebook are doing an enormous amount of good work with schools to inspire young people to take up careers in IT, but let us be honest: we have a long-standing problem with computer science in this country and with the number of women studying it.
	As the hon. Lady will be aware, under the previous Government the proportion of women taking computing A-levels fell from 12% to 8% as a proportion between 2004 and 2011. The current situation is indeed poor. For A-level computer studies in 2012, only 255 of the 3,420 entrants—just 7.5%—were girls, which represents a decline of three quarters over the past 10 years. There is a similar problem with physics, as 6,500 girls took physics A-level in 2012, which is only 21% of the total cohort, and the situation has remained static over the past 10 years. The number of girls studying maths A-level has doubled over the past 10 years, but the situation is not as positive for further maths, which is very important for STEM subjects at university. Some 3,700 girls took further maths in 2012, which is only 30% of the cohort.
	As the hon. Lady pointed out, the situation is very different in other countries, particularly emerging economies, which have seen their share of women studying computer science and engineering increase drastically. In India the proportion of female undergraduates has doubled, and in Malaysia technical jobs are dominated by women. As she pointed out, 26 April is international girls in ICT day, which is very important. The Government think that the situation has to change.
	A lot has changed in IT since I used to program BASIC at school in the 1990s. There has been a technology revolution. Technology affects every area of our lives
	and so many different jobs. It has changed the way we do politics and business and so many things about how we deliver public services. A sound knowledge of how ICT works and of the underlying architecture of computing is important for everybody, whether they are looking to get into motor manufacturing, politics or any area of commerce. It is a universal skill that we all need, and all young people will need it. It is a very important part of our curriculum developments. That is why we are reforming the ICT curriculum. We disapplied the existing curriculum because it was not fit for purpose.

Justin Tomlinson: That is an incredibly important point, because when I visit representatives of the UK games industry, they say time and again that graduates simply are not equipped with the necessary skills and almost have to start again, and that more often than not it is easier to import labour from abroad, which is creating further barriers to females and males in this country who could play an important part in this growing economy.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for that point and agree with it. Our new computing curriculum is very different, because it is not just about how to use the software and programmes, but about getting young people coding from a very early age and understanding the architecture of computing.

Chi Onwurah: Can we clarify this point? We have the ICT curriculum and the computing curriculum. There are no guidelines or standards for ICT, because the national curriculum has been disapplied, but are there any guidelines to encourage girls and make it more appealing to them? I am pleased to hear that the computing course has been made more vigorous.

Elizabeth Truss: To be clear, under the national curriculum, what was the ICT curriculum will be called the computing curriculum, so we are renaming the subject. We have been working with the British Computing Society to create a new curriculum that addresses issues such as how to use digital devices, but that also focuses much more on understanding programming and coding. Primary school students will, therefore, be doing programming from quite a young age, using programmes such as Scratch, which has been developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and which enables young children to programme an on-screen cat to do certain things. It is attractive for children and gives them an understanding of how programming works. By the time they get to key stage 3, they will be learning at least two programming languages, so this is a real step change.
	We have also recently announced that GCSE computer science will be added to the list of science options in the English baccalaureate. We are, therefore, taking computer science very seriously as a subject. We recognise the importance of computing knowledge and skills for the future of the economy, so we want to raise its quality and profile in schools. We also want to make it a universal subject that is attractive to boys and girls alike, which is important.
	The Department has been working in partnership with the British Computing Society to help to prepare teachers for the challenges of teaching this curriculum. I assure the hon. Lady that many employers and leading companies in the IT industry are already engaged in helping schools to implement that curriculum.
	I announced this morning that the Government will provide the British Computing Society with more than £2 million over the next two financial years to support the training of computer science master teachers, who will then communicate with other teachers across the network to make sure that the subject is taught well in all our schools.
	I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to start young in encouraging girls to take up these careers. It is important that young people should be encouraged not to close off options by dropping subjects that may be important later. That points to a wider issue relating to engineering, IT and other STEM disciplines, because those subjects have the highest earning premiums with regard to A-level, degree and PhD, and women often lose out on the possibility of valuable and engaging careers because they do not study those subjects earlier in their school life.
	We think that primary school is really important, and we are strengthening the mathematics curriculum. It is also important that children are exposed to programming and coding at an age when they can see their potential and how exciting they are before going to secondary school. That is a critical part of our programme.
	Britain has a wider cultural problem—I think a few other countries suffer from it as well—with the perception of careers in computing, IT and engineering and people not understanding the wide variety of careers available. I have been in discussions with leading companies, some of which the hon. Lady has mentioned, about how we can raise the profile of engineering, show the myriad options available and raise the profile of IT and make it an aspirational career for young people. I think that primary school is particularly critical in being able to do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is interested in financial education, will be interested to know that I discussed with the Personal Finance Education Group this morning how we can talk about the value of careers as part of financial education, so that children understand what skills will be expected in the careers of the future and what they should study if they want to achieve those goals in their life.
	It is important to mention that a career in ICT is not just about computing. Scientific and mathematical skills are needed as well. We are working to ensure that everybody studies mathematics to age 18 by introducing new core mathematics qualifications for students who have a GCSE but are not doing A-level maths. We have announced an expanded further mathematics support programme to ensure that the number of students who take maths and further maths continues to increase. The feedback that I have received from the IT industry is that it often recruits from other countries because there are more students with higher level maths skills.
	We are giving computing a new impetus through a challenging new curriculum, sustained support for teacher training and robust qualifications.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the measures that the Minister has mentioned on improving the teaching of maths, computing and STEM subjects more generally. That is very important, but will she say what she is doing specifically to support girls into ICT?

Elizabeth Truss: Because we are making the subject universal, girls will be doing programming as well as boys. That is important. As the hon. Lady said, it is important not to gender divide this technology, which underlies the whole of our society and politics. We have programmes for getting girls to study physics, such as the Stimulating Physics Network. However, our view is that so few students are learning programming skills at an early age that the best thing to do is to have a universal programme that reaches everybody.
	A lot of organisations work in this area—the hon. Lady mentioned some of them—such as the Computer Club for Girls, the Code Club, the Computing at School network and Apps for Good, the chief operating officer of which in the UK, Debbie Forster, is an excellent role model for girls in the industry.
	There is a particular issue with girls that we need to address. However, I believe that our focus on ensuring that teachers are trained up so that they understand the career opportunities in IT and know what programming is and how to teach it to young children will be critical in shaping the future and in shaping young girls’ expectations of their potential.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising these issues.

Julie Hilling: Before the Minister moves on, will she say more about careers? There is now a deficit in the careers advice for all young people, but particularly for girls. Such advice often rests with teachers, who might not have any experience of industry, having gone from school to university and back to school. How will she bridge that gap and provide more careers education that allows young people to understand the vast range of jobs in engineering, and in ICT specifically?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. Our approach is to engage with industry through the British Computer Society to ensure that there are
	more direct links with schools. It is helpful for students to see a local business person in the classroom and to understand what they do and what opportunities are out there. It is therefore helpful for businesses to engage directly with teachers. We have made the new national curriculum much more flexible so that teachers can design their own curriculum that is based on the national curriculum, but that reflects the resources available locally and engages with the master computer science teachers that we are creating.

Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister give way?

Elizabeth Truss: No, I am sorry, but I have already taken a number of interventions.
	It is now up to schools, working with industry, to engage all pupils, particularly girls, and ensure that they have the opportunities they need. ICT skills need to be universal and something that we as a society do. Computer science will be taught in the national curriculum alongside subjects such as maths, English and languages, because we believe it to be vital.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for raising the issue. The need for more girls doing IT, physics and maths should be higher up the agenda of our national ambitions, so I am grateful to her for drawing attention to it. Demand for high-level skills in computing will only grow in the years ahead, and it is vital that we tap into the 50% of the population who are not currently doing as much IT as they could. We must also improve the general level of programming skills across the spectrum.
	In work, academia and their personal lives, young people will depend on their technological literacy and knowledge, and we have a duty to ensure that they have the right skills that will serve them well in their future study and career.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.